17.9 Shar'a xalifalik uchun aniq bir shaxsni belgilab bermagan

17.9 Shar'a xalifalik uchun aniq bir shaxsni belgilab bermagan - Islomiy shaxsiyat | Quran Course

Birinchidan: Bu fikr bay’ah bilan ziddiyatga keladi, chunki birov nomzodini ko‘rsatish musulmonlarga kimning ularning Xalifasi bo‘lishini xabar qilish demakdir. Shunday ekan, Xalifa ma’lum bo‘lgan bo‘ladi va bay’ah tashri’ qilinishiga ehtiyoj qolmaydi, chunki bay’ah Xalifani tayinlash usulidir. Agar u oldindan tayinlangan bo‘lsa, uni tayinlash usulini ko‘rsatishga ehtiyoj qolmaydi, chunki aslida u allaqachon tayinlangan. Bay’ahni Xalifaga itoat bay’ahi deb ham bo‘lmaydi, chunki Shar’ Xalifaga va ulul amrga itoatni boshqa ko‘plab matnlarda, bay’ah matnidan alohida ravishda bayon qilgan. Itoat musulmonlardan aniq talab qilingan; bay’ahga kelsak, u musulmonlardan boshqa talablarda, itoat sifatida emas, balki Xilofat uchun shartnoma sifatida talab qilingan. Garchi u itoat ma’nosini ham o‘z ichiga olsa-da, bay’ah to‘g‘risidagi barcha hadislarda uning ma’nosi itoat emas, balki bay’ah qilinган kishiga yetakchilik berish va shu yetakchilikka bo‘ysunishga tayyorlanishdir. Shuning uchun bay’ahni Xilofat tayinlanishining sharti qilish Payg‘ambarimiz ﷺ ning o‘zlaridan keyin ma’lum bir shaxsni Xalifa etib tayinlashlariga zid keladi. Bundan tashqari, sahih hadislarda kelgan bay’ah so‘zlari umumiy (‘aam) ravishda, tahsissiz (takhsees) va cheklovsiz (mutlaq), har kim uchun kelgan. Agar ular ma’lum bir shaxs uchun bay’ah degan ma’noni anglatganda edi, umumiy va cheklanmagan bo‘lmas edi. Hadislarning so‘zlari:

First: This contradicts the pledge (bay’ah) since nominating a person means informing the Muslims as to who will be the Khalifah over them. Hence the Khalifah would be known so there would remain no need for legislating (tashri’) the pledge as the pledge is the method of appointing the Khalifah. So if he has already been appointed in advance, there remains no need to demonstrate the method of appointing him as, in fact, he has already been appointed. Nor can it be said that the pledge is the pledge of obedience to the Khalifah since the Shar’a has enunciated the obedience to the Khalifah and those in charge (ulu al-amr) in many other texts distinct from the text of the pledge. Obedience has been explicitly requested from Muslims; as for the pledge, it has been requested from Muslims in other request(s) not in consideration as being (merely) obedience, though it does include the meaning of obedience, but in consideration as being a contract for the Khilafah. Its meaning in all the ahadith that mentioned it is not obedience, rather it is about giving leadership to the one who is pledged and preparing to submit to this leadership. So making the pledge a condition for appointing the Khilafah contradicts the Messenger (saw) nominating a specific person to be Khalifah after him. Moreover, the words of the pledge which came in the correct (Saheeh) ahadith came in a general manner (‘aam) without specification (takhsees), and unrestricted (mutlaq) without any restriction (taqyeed), for anyone. Were they to mean the pledge for a specific person they would not have been general and unrestricted. The word(s) of the ahadith are:

Ushbu matnda "Khalifah" va "ba’yah" kabi atamalar ishlatilgan. Bu so‘zlar o‘zbek tilida ham shunday qoldiriladi, chunki matn ularni tarjima qilmasdan ishlatadi. Bu matnda ta’kidlanishicha, agar ikkita Xalifa tayinlansa, keyingisini o‘ldirish kerak. Shuningdek, Payg‘ambar ﷺning barcha hadislari Xalifani tayinlash usulini aniq bayon qiladi. Payg‘ambar ﷺning hadislari mutlaq itoatni yoki cheksiz itoatni anglatmaydi; aksincha, ular Xalifa sifatida tayinlangan kishiga ergashishni bildiradi va bu Xalifani tayinlash usuli ekanligini ko‘rsatadi. Bundan tashqari, rivoyat yoki ma’no jihatidan sahih bo‘lgan birorta ham hadis yo‘qki, u ba’yahdan boshqa Xalifani tayinlash usulini ko‘rsatsin.

This is explicit that if two Khalifahs are appointed, kill the later of them. Likewise all ahadith of the Prophet are explicit that it is the method of appointing the Khalifah. The ahadith of the Prophet are explicit in not meaning mere obedience or unrestricted (mutlaq) obedience; rather, they mean following the one appointed as the Khalifah with their meaning that this is the method of appointing the Khalifah. Further, there is not even one authenticated hadith, whether in narration or meaning, which demonstrates a method of appointing the Khalifah other than the ba’yah.

Ikkinchidan: Payg'ambar (s.a.v.) dan rivoyat qilingan hadislarda odamlar o'rtasida xalifalik borasida nizolar va bu lavozim uchun raqobat bo'lishi aytilgan. Agar Payg'ambar (s.a.v.) biror shaxsni tayinlash haqida aniq matn qoldirgan bo'lsa, u holda bu matn mavjud bo'lganda nizo kelib chiqmas edi yoki Payg'ambar (s.a.v.) odamlar o'sha shaxs bilan tortishishlarini aytib qo'yar edi. Holbuki, matnlar odamlarning o'zaro tortishishi haqida kelgan va bu nizoni hal qilish yo'lini hamda xalifalik masalasini yechish usulini ham bayon qilgan. Muslim o'zining "Sahih" kitobida rivoyat qiladi: Vahb ibn Baqiyyat al-Vositiy menga rivoyat qildi, Xolid ibn Abdulloh al-Juzayriy bizga Abu Nadrodan, u Abu Saiyd al-Xudriydan rivoyat qildi, u esa aytdi: Allohning Elchisi (s.a.v.) aytdilar:

Second: Ahadith have been narrated from the Messenger (saw) indicating that there will be disputes and contentions among people about the Khilafah and competition over it. If there was a text from the Messenger (saw) concerning the appointment of a (specific) person, there would not arise a dispute in the presence of that text or the Messenger (saw) would state that people would dispute with that person. Whereas the texts came saying that people would dispute between themselves and it also clarified the method to resolve this dispute and settle the issue of the Khilafah. Muslim narrated in his Saheeh: Wahab bin Baqiyyat al-Wasiti narrated to me that Khalid bin Abdullah al-Juzairi told us from Abu Nadhra from Abu Saeed al-Khudri who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Shularning barchasi shuni ko‘rsatadiki, Rasululloh ﷺ o‘zlaridan keyin xalifa kim bo‘lishi masalasini aniq bir shaxsni belgilamasdan, ochiq qoldirgan. Bu, Rasululloh ﷺ xilofat uchun muayyan bir kishini tayinlamaganlari, balki buni barcha musulmonlarning huquqi sifatida qoldirganlari haqida aniq dalildir. Unga, ba’zi matnlarning jamlik (jam’u) shaklida kelganini qo‘shib qarasak, bu imomning muayyan bir shaxs bo‘lishini inkor etuvchi aniq matn bo‘lib chiqadi.

All this indicates that the Messenger (saw) left the issue concerning who would be the Khalifah after him unspecified without specifying him. This is explicit in its indication that the Messenger (saw) did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah but rather left it as a right for all Muslims. When you add to this that some texts came with the collective (jam’u) language, this becomes a clear text in negating the Imam being a specific person.

To'rtinchi: Sahobalar (roziyallohu anhum) o'z davrida ulardan kim xalifa bo'lishi haqida ixtilof qilgan edilar. Shaxslar o'rtasidagi bu ixtilof Rasululloh (ﷺ) xalifalik uchun aniq bir shaxsni tayinlamaganining dalilidir. Ixtilof qilgan kishilar orasida, ular haqida Rasululloh (ﷺ) ularning xalifaligi haqida gapirgani aytiladigan zotlar ham bor, ya'ni Abu Bakr (roziyallohu anhu) va Ali (roziyallohu anhu). Ixtiloflariga qaramay, ulardan hech biri xalifalik uning uchun ekanligi haqida Rasulullohdan (ﷺ) matn borligini da'vo qilmagan, sahobalardan hech biri ham ma'lum kishilar uchun umuman matn borligini da'vo qilmagan. Agar biron matn bo'lganida, ular bahslashgan bo'lar edilar; shuning uchun ular hech qanday matn bilan bahslashmagani xalifalik uchun aniq bir shaxs haqida matn yo'qligini bildiradi. Ularidan keyin ma'lum bo'lgan, ammo ularga yetib bormagan matn bor, deb ham aytmaslik kerak, chunki biz dinimizni sahobalardan olamiz. Ular bizga Qur'onni yetkazganlar va hadisni rivoyat qilganlardir. Shuning uchun sahobalardan matn yo'q yoki biron matn bo'lsa ham, u hech qanday tarzda tan olinmaydi. Biz ulardan kelganini qabul qilamiz, ulardan kelmaganini esa tashlab yuboramiz. Rasulullohdan (ﷺ) keyin xalifa uchun matn bo'lishi masalasiga kelsak, Abu Bakr (roziyallohu anhu) va Ali (roziyallohu anhu) ham shu jumladan barcha sahobalar istisnosiz, xalifalik uchun aniq bir shaxs haqida matn yo'qligiga ittifoq qilganlarini ko'ramiz, chunki gapirish zarurati va agar matn mavjud bo'lganida uni zikr qilish zaruriyati bo'lishiga qaramay, ular buni zikr qilmaganlar. Bu Rasulullohning (ﷺ) xalifalik uchun shaxsni tayinlashi haqiqatga to'g'ri kelmasligini ko'rsatadi. Matnni zikr qilmaslik Muslimlarning birligini saqlash ehtiyotkorligi tufayli bo'lgan, deb ham aytmaslik kerak, chunki bu Allohning hukmini yashirish va uni, ayniqsa Muslimlar uchun bunday muhim masalada, zarur bo'lgan paytda yetkazmaslik demakdir. Bu Allohning dinida yashirish (taqiya) Allohning Rasuli ﷺ ning sahobalaridan (r.a.) kelishi mumkin emas.

Fourth: The Sahabah (ra) differed in their time about the persons to be the Khalifah among them. This difference among persons is evidence that the Messenger (saw) did not designate a specific person for the Khilafah. Among the very people who differed are those of whom it is said that the Messenger enunciated upon their Khilafah, namely: Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra). Despite their differences, none of them ever argued that there was a text from the Messenger (saw) that the Khilafah is for him nor did any of the Sahabah (ra) argue that there was a text for certain people in general. Were there any text, they would have argued with them; so their failure to argue using any text means that there is no text for a specific person for the Khilafah. Nor should anyone say that there is a text which was known after them but it did not reach them, because we take our deen from the Sahabah (ra). They are the ones who conveyed the Qur’an, and narrated the hadith, to us. So if there is no text or any text from the Sahabah (ra), then it is not recognised in any way. We take whatever came from them while throwing away whatever did not come from them. In relation to the issue of a text for a Khalifah after the Messenger (saw), we find that all the Sahabah (ra) without exception including Abu Bakr (ra) and Ali (ra) agreed upon the absence of any text for a specific person for the Khilafah due to their failure to mention this despite the need for speaking and the necessity for mentioning the text if it existed. This indicates the invalidity of the Messenger (saw) designating a person for the Khilafah. Nor should one say that the failure to mention the text was due to the precaution to preserve the unity of the Muslims for this means hiding a rule of Allah and not delivering it at the very time it was urgently required, particularly in such an important matter for the Muslims. This hiding in the deen of Allah is not possible to come from the Sahabah (ra) of the Messenger of Allah (saw).

Beshinchi: Rasulullah ﷺ ma'lum bir shaxsning uning vafotidan keyin xalifa bo'lishi ma'nosida xalifa tayinlamaganligi haqida aniq matnlar kelgan. Al-Bukhariy Abdulloh ibn Umar (roziyallohu anhu) dan rivoyat qilgan: Umarga aytildi: "Xalifa tayinlamaysizmi?" U dedi:

Fifth: There have come explicit texts that the Messenger (saw) did not appoint a Khalifah by the meaning that a specific person will be Khalifah after him. Al-Bukhari narrated from Abdullah bin Umar (ra) who said: It was said to Umar, will you not appoint a Khalifah? He said:

Aniq matn shuni ko‘rsatadiki, Elchi (saw) xalifa tayinlamagan. Shuningdek, buni Umarning shaxsiy fikri deb atash ham to‘g‘ri emas, chunki sahobiy: “Elchi (saw) shunday qildi yoki qilmadi, yoki biz uning davrida shunday edik, yoki uning davrida shunday-shunday bo‘lgan”, deganda, bu shunchaki sahobiyning qarashi emas, balki dalil sifatida keltirilgan hadisdir. Bundan tashqari, Umar bu so‘zni sahobalar (ra)ning eshitishi va ko‘z o‘ngida aytgan, Ali (ra) ham hozir bo‘lgan va bu gap unga yetib borgan, lekin u unga qarshi chiqmagan. Bu esa Umar (ra) rivoyat qilgan narsaga ular o‘rtasida kelishuv borligini ko‘rsatadi.

This is a clear text that the Messenger (saw) did not appoint a Khalifah. Nor should one say that this is Umar’s opinion for when a companion says, ‘The Messenger (saw) did this or did not do this or we were in his time like this or there was in his time such and such’, this is a hadith used as evidence not merely a companion’s view. Moreover, Umar said this within the hearing and sight of the Sahabah (ra), and Ali (ra) was present and this statement reached him and he did not oppose it, which indicates their agreement upon what Umar (ra) narrated.

Bularning barchasi, Xalifalik uchun aniq bir shaxsni tayinlovchi hech qanday aniq matn mavjud emasligi nuqtai nazaridan aytilmoqda. Aniq bir shaxsni tayinlashga dalolat qiluvchi matnlar bor, deb aytuvchilarning keltirgan dalillariga kelsak, ulardan biri Payg'ambar ﷺ Abu Bakr (ra) ni o'zidan keyin Xalifa bo'lishga tayinlaganiga dalolat qilish uchun keltirilgan, boshqalari esa Payg'ambar ﷺ Ali (ra) ni o'zidan keyin Xalifa qilib tayinlaganiga dalolat qilish uchun keltirilgan. Biz ularni keltirishimiz va mazmunini tushuntirishimiz kerak.

This is all with respect to the absence of any specific text designating a specific person for the Khilafah. As for the texts brought by those who say that there are texts designating a specific person, among these texts are those brought to indicate that the Messenger appointed Abu Bakr (ra) to become Khalifah after him whereas others are brought to indicate that he appointed Ali (ra) as the Khalifah after him. We must present them and explain their contents.

Quyidagilar Abu Bakr (r.a.) ni tayinlaganini aytuvchilar keltirgan matnlarga tegishli: ular ikki qismga bo‘linadi. Bir qismida Payg‘ambar ﷺ Abu Bakr (r.a.) ni maqtaydi, lekin unda Payg‘ambar ﷺ uni tayinlaganiga dalolat qiluvchi hech narsa yo‘q. Ikkinchi qismida esa ayrimlar bu matndan Payg‘ambar ﷺ Abu Bakr (r.a.) ni tayinlaganini istidlol yo‘li bilan chiqaradi, boshqalari esa uni Abu Bakr (r.a.) ni tayinlagan deb tushunadi. Biz ularning namunasini bir nechtasini keltirish orqali taqdim etamiz, shuni e’tiborga olgan holda, ularning hech biri maqtov ma’nosidan oshmaydi.

As for the texts brought by those who say the Messenger (saw) appointed Abu Bakr (ra), they are divided into two: One portion in which the Messenger (saw) praises Abu Bakr (ra) wherein there is nothing to indicate that the Messenger (saw) appointed him. The other portion is one wherein some deduce by deduction that the Messenger (saw) appointed Abu Bakr (ra) while others deduce that he nominated Abu Bakr (ra). We will present their model by presenting some of them, noting that none of them exceed the meaning of praise.

Abu Saeed al-Xudriy rivoyat qilishicha, Payg'ambar ﷺ shunday degan:

Al-Bukhari narrated from Abu Saeed al-Khudri that the Prophet (saw) said:

Muslim ham bu hadisni boshqacha so'zlar bilan rivoyat qilgan, garchi ma'nosi shularga o'xshash bo'lsa ham. Bu hadisda hech narsa yo'qki, u Abu Bakr (ra) ni xalifa etib tayinlaganini anglatsin. Unda faqat Rasulullah ﷺ dan Abu Bakr (ra) ga qilingan maqtov bor, Rasulullah ﷺ esa ko'plab sahobalarni ismlari bilan maqtagan. Umar (ra), Usmon (ra), Ali (ra), Sa'd ibn Abu Vaqqos (ra), Talha (ra), Zubayr ibn al-Avvom (ra), Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarroh (ra), al-Hasan (ra) va al-Husayn (ra), Zayd ibn Horita (ra), Usama ibn Zayd (ra), Abdulloh ibn Ja'far (ra), Xadija (ra),Oisha (ra), Rasulullah ﷺ ning qizi Fotima (ra), Ummu Salama (ra), Bilol (ra) va boshqalar haqida ham maqtovli hadislar kelgan. Maqtovning o'zi hech qanday holatda xalifalikka tayinlanganlikni ko'rsatmaydi.

Muslim also narrated this hadith but with different wording, although similar to these ones. There is nothing in this hadith to make a person say that he appointed Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah. All that it contains is praise for Abu Bakr (ra) from the Messenger (saw), and the Messenger (saw) praised many companions by name. There have come ahadith with praise for Umar (ra), Uthman (ra), Ali (ra), Sa’d bin Abu Waqqas (ra), Talha (ra), Az-Zubayr (ra), Abu ‘Ubaydah bin al Jarrah (ra), Al-Hassan (ra) and Al-Hussein (ra), Zayd bin Haritha (ra), Usama bin Zayd (ra), Abdullah bin Ja’far (ra), Khadija (ra), Aisha (ra), Fatima (ra) daughter of the Prophet (saw), Umm Salamah (ra), Bilal (ra) and others. Praise by itself does not in any way whatsoever indicate appointment to be Khalifah.

Abu Bakr (ra) xalifaligini ba'zilar dalil qilib keltirgan hadislarga kelsak, ular to'rt hadis bo'lib, biz ularni keltirib, ularda bor barcha narsani izohlaymiz. Bu hadislar quyidagilardir:

As for the ahadith from which some deduced the Khilafah of Abu Bakr (ra), they are four ahadith which we will present and clarify all that they contain. These ahadith are:

Birinchidan: Al-Buxoriy Al-Qosim ibn Muhammad (roziyallohu anhu) dan rivoyat qildi, u shunday degan:

First: Al-Bukhari narrated from Al-Qasim bin Muhammad (ra) who said:

Lekin u shunday qilmagan, shuning uchun bu dalil emas. Chunki dalil Rasulullohning ﷺ so'zi, amali yoki sukuti bo'lib, bulardan boshqasi shariat dalili hisoblanmaydi. Ikkinchidan, Oisha (roziyallohu anho) Abu Bakrning (roziyallohu anhu) qizi edi, shuning uchun bu hadis mavjud bo'lganida, u Abu Bakrga (roziyallohu anhu) xabar bergan bo'lardi. Keyin Ansor o'z orasidan xalifa tayinlash uchun bay'at qilish maqsadida to'planganida, u Saqifaga borib, ular bilan bahslashganda, ushbu hadis bilan bahslashgan bo'lardi. Demak, bu hadis rad etilgan (mardud) bo'lib, Abu Bakrning (roziyallohu anhu) xalifa etib tayinlanishiga dalil bo'la olmaydi.

But he did not do so, so this is not an evidence. For the evidence is the Messenger’s (saw) saying, action or silent consent; anything other than these is not considered Shari’ah evidence. Secondly, Aisha (ra) is Abu Bakr’s daughter so were this hadith present she would have informed Abu Bakr (ra). Then he would have argued with it when he went to the courtyard (saqeefa) to contend with the Ansar when they gathered to pledge allegiance to a Khalifah amongst them. Therefore this hadith is rejected (mardud) and is unsuitable to be an evidence for the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah.

Ikkinchi hadisga kelsak, u Abu Bakr (ra) ning xalifa etib tayinlanganiga dalil bo‘la olmaydi, chunki ayol: “Agar sizni topmasam”, degan. Demak, u Abu Bakrni urushda yoki boshqa biror ishda yo‘qligi sababli topa olmasligi to‘g‘ri bo‘ladi. Uning “Agar sizni topmasam” degan so‘zlari bilan vafot etganingizni nazarda tutganiga hech narsa dalolat qilmaydi. Hadisda kelgan “go‘yo u o‘limni nazarda tutgandek” degan so‘zlar Jubayrning va uning tushunchasining so‘zlaridir. Shuning uchun Rasulullah ﷺ ning ayolga, agar kelib uni topmasa, Abu Bakr (ra) ning oldiga borishni buyurishi, Rasulullah ﷺ dan keyin Abu Bakr (ra) ning xalifa etib tayinlanganiga dalil emas. Hatto biz uning tushunchasini o‘lim degan ma’noda qabul qilishga majbur bo‘lsak ham, bu so‘zlar Abu Bakrni Rasulullah ﷺ dan keyin xalifa etib belgilamaydi. Uchinchi hadisga kelsak, bu namozga imom etib tayinlashdir, boshqa narsa emas. Namozga tayinlash hukmronlikka (hukm) tayinlashni anglatmaydi. Ularning: “Rasulullah ﷺ uni din masalasida rozi bo‘ldilar, shuning uchun dunyo masalasida ham biz uni rozi bo‘lmasligimiz kerakmi?” degan so‘zlari esa ularning tushunchasidir va u xato, chunki namoz bilan hukmronlik o‘rtasida katta farq bor. Namozda imom bo‘lishga loyiq har bir kishi hukmronlikda rahbar bo‘lishga ham loyiq emas. Bundan tashqari, matn namozga xos bo‘lib, boshqa narsalarni o‘z ichiga olmaydi va matnning xosligi sababli uni boshqa narsalarga ham olib bo‘lmaydi.

As for the second hadith, it does not indicate the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah because the woman said: “If I did not find you”; so it is correct that she failed to find him due to his absence in a war or any other matter. There is nothing in it to indicate that she meant by her words “If I did not find you” that you had died. The words which came in the hadith “As if she meant death” are the words of Jubayr and his understanding. So the Messenger’s command for her to go to Abu Bakr (ra) if she came and did not find him is no proof for the appointment of Abu Bakr (ra) as Khalifah after the Messenger (saw). Even if we were compelled to take her understanding to mean death, these words still would not designate Abu Bakr as Khalifah after him (saw). As for the third hadith, this is the appointment over prayer and nothing else. Appointment over prayer does not mean appointment in authority (hukm). As for their statement: “The Messenger of Allah was pleased with him in a matter of the deen, so should we not be pleased with him in a matter of the world (dunya)”; this is their understanding, and it is erroneous because there is a large difference between prayer and ruling. Not all who are suitable to become a leader (Imam) in prayer are suitable to be a leader in ruling. Moreover, the text is specific to prayer so it does not encompass other things, nor should it be taken to mean other things due to the specificity (khususiyya) of the text.

To'rtinchi hadisga kelsak, u hadis hisoblanmaydi, chunki u Rasululloh ﷺ dan hech narsani rivoyat qilmaydi; aksincha, bu Oisha roziyallohu anhoning fikridir. Sahobalarning fikri dalil emas va shariat hujjati hisoblanmaydi, shuning uchun bu gap rad etiladi, chunki u hadis emas va shariat hukmlariga nisbatan hech qanday ahamiyatga ega emas.

As for the fourth hadith, it is not considered a hadith as it does not relate anything from the Messenger (saw); rather it is Aisha’s opinion. The Sahabah’s opinion is not a proof nor considered Shari’ah evidence, so this (statement) is rejected as it is not a hadith and has no value in relation to the Shari’ah rules.

Bu, Abu Bakrning xalifa etib tayinlanishini dalil qilib keltiruvchilarning hadislariga tegishlidir. Ali (ra)ni Payg'ambar (saw) tayinlagan, deb aytuvchilar keltirgan hadislarga kelsak, ular uch toifaga bo'linadi: birinchi toifa – Payg'ambar (saw) hazrat Ali (ra)ni maqtagan hadislar; ikkinchi toifa – ba'zilar Payg'ambar (saw) Ali (ra)ni tayinlagan, deb xulosa chiqargan hadislar; va uchinchi toifa – bu hadislarni Ali (ra) xalifa etib tayinlangan, degan aniq matn bor deb dalil qilganlar orasida paydo bo'lgan hadislar.

This is in relation to the ahadith presented by those who argue for Abu Bakr’s appointment as Khalifah. As for the ahadith presented by those who say the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (saw), they are of three categories: A category in which the Messenger (saw) praised our master Ali (ra), a category in which some have deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra), and a category which came up among the ones who used these ahadith as evidence to say that there exists clear text that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) as the Khalifah.

Birinchi toifaga kelsak, unda Payg'ambar ﷺ Ali (ra)ni maqtagan, biz ulardan namunani bir qancha hadislarni keltirish orqali taqdim etamiz, boshqalari esa maqtash ma'nosidan oshib ketmaydi.

As for the first category in which the Messenger (saw) praised Ali (ra), we will present a model from them by mentioning some of the ahadith and the others don't exceeding the meaning of praise.

Al-Buxoriy Sahl ibn Sa'd (ra) dan rivoyat qilgan:

Al-Bukhari narrated from Sahl bin S’ad (ra)

"Endi maqsadimizga o'tamiz. Ey insonlar, men ham bir insonman. Men Rabbimdan bir elchi (ya'ni o'lim farishtasi) qabul qilishga yaqinman va Allohning chaqiruviga javoban (sizlar bilan xayrlashmoqchiman), ammo orangizda ikki og'ir narsani qoldiraman: birinchisi – Allohning Kitobi, unda to'g'ri hidoyat va nur bor, shuning uchun Allohning Kitobini mahkam tutinglar va unga amal qilinglar." U (Allohning Kitobini mahkam tutishga) da'vat qildi, so'ngra dedi: "Ikkinchisi – mening Ahli baytim. Ahli baytim haqida sizlarga (vazifalaringizni) eslatib o'taman." U (Husayn) Zaydga dedi: "Uning Ahli bayti kimlar? Uning xotinlari uning Ahli baytidan emasmi?" Shunda u dedi: "Uning xotinlari ham Ahli baytidandir, ammo bu yerda Ahli bayt – ularga zakot olish harom qilingan kishilardir." U yana dedi: "Ular kimlar?" Shunda u dedi: "Ali va Alining avlodlari, Aqil va Aqilning avlodlari, Ja'farning avlodlari va Abbosning avlodlari." Husayn dedi: "Ular – zakot olish harom qilingan kishilardir." Zayd dedi: "Ha."

" Now to our purpose. O people, I am a human being. I am about to receive a messenger (the angel of death) from my Lord and I, in response to Allah's call, (would bid good-bye to you), but I am leaving among you two weighty things: the one being the Book of Allah in which there is right guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it. He exhorted (us) (to hold fast) to the Book of Allah and then said: The second are the members of my household I remind you (of your duties) to the members of my family. He (Husain) said to Zaid: Who are the members of his household? Aren't his wives the members of his family? Thereupon he said: His wives are the members of his family (but here) the members of his family are those for whom acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. And he said: Who are they? Thereupon he said: 'Ali and the offspring of 'Ali, 'Aqil and the offspring of 'Aqil and the offspring of Ja'far and the offspring of 'Abbas. Husain said: These are those for whom the acceptance of Zakat is forbidden. Zaid said: Yes.”

"Ey odamlar, menga chaqiriladigan va men javob beradigan vaqt yaqinlashmoqda (o'lim nazarda tutilgan). Albatta, men mas'ulman va siz ham mas'ulsiz, shunday ekan nima deysiz?" Ular dedilar: "Biz guvohlik beramiz, siz (haqiqatni) yetkazdingiz, jihod qildingiz va nasihat qildingiz, Alloh sizga yaxshi mukofot bersin." U zot dedilar: "Alloh yagona ilohdan o'zga iloh yo'qligiga, Muhammad ﷺ Uning bandasi va Rasuli ekaniga, Jannat haqq ekaniga, Do'zax haqq ekaniga, o'lim haqq ekaniga, o'limdan keyin tirilish haqq ekaniga, Qiyomat (Hisob kuni) shak-shubhasiz kelishiga va Alloh barcha kishilarni qabrlaridan tiriltirishiga guvohlik bermaysizmi?" Ular dedilar: "Ha, guvohlik beramiz." Shunda u zot dedilar: "Ey odamlar, albatta Alloh mening Mavlom (homiyim)dir va men mo'minlarning homiyisiman, ya'ni men ularga o'z nafslaridan ham ustunman. Kimki meni homiy deb bilsa, mana bu (Ali) ham uning homiyisidir." Ey Alloh, uni dўst tutgan kishini dўst tut, uni dushman tutgan kishini dushman tut. So'ng u zot dedilar: "Ey odamlar, albatta men sizlarni tark etaman va siz meni Havzda (hovuz oldida) topasiz. Bu havz Basradan Sanoagacha bo'lgan masofadan ham kengroqdir. Unda yulduzlar miqdoridagi kumush ko'zachalar bor. Albatta, siz mening huzurimga kelganingizda sizdan ikki og'ir narsa haqida so'rayman: mendan keyin ularga qanday amal qildingiz. Og'irroq va buyukroq narsa Allohning Kitobidir. Uning bir uchi Allohning qo'lida, ikkinchi uchi esa sizlarning qo'lingizdadir. Adashmaslik va o'zgartirmaslik uchun uni mahkam tutinglar. Ikkinchisi esa mening Itratim (Ahli baytim), uy ahlimdir. Albatta, Eng Mehribon va Eng Bilguvchi Zot (Alloh taolo) menga xabar berdiki, ular Havzda mening huzurimga kelguncha hech qachon bir-biridan ajralmaydilar."

“O people, it is about to be that I am called and I will respond (indicating death). Verily, I am accountable and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We will testify that you conveyed, struggled and advised so may Allah recompense you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no deity but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger, that Paradise is true and Hellfire is true, that death is true and resurrection after death is true, that the Hour (of Judgement) will come without any doubt, and that Allah will resurrect all those in their graves? They said: Yes, we do bear witness. Then he said: O people, verily Allah is my Patron and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. Whoever takes me as his patron then this one is his patron—meaning Ali. O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and take as enemy whoever takes him as an enemy. Then he said: O people, verily I will leave you and you will find me at the Cistern, a cistern wider than the distance from Basra to Sana’a. In it are tumblers of silver the number of stars. Verily I will ask you when you come before me on the two weighty things, how you took care of them after me. The weightier and greater one is the Book of Allah ‘azza wa jalla, a (sabab) of which one end is in the hands of Allah and the other in your hands. Hold tightly to it so that you do not go astray or change, and my Utra (household), the people of my house. Verily The Kind & All-Knowing (swt) has informed me that they will never seperate until they come before me at the cistern (fountain)”

Barcha maqtovlar yolg'iz Allohga xosdir, biz Undan yordam so'raymiz, Unga iymon keltiramiz va Unga tayanamiz. Biz Allohdan nafslarimizning yomonliklari va yomon amallarimizdan Uni panoh berishini so'raymiz. Kimni Alloh hidoyat qilmasa, uni hech kim to'g'ri yo'lga boshlay olmaydi; kimni Alloh adashtirsa, uni hech kim hidoyat qila olmaydi. Men guvohlik beraman, Allohdan o'zga iloh yo'q va Muhammad ﷺ Uning bandasi va elchisidir. Bundan keyin: Ey odamlar! Albatta, Eng Mehribon va Eng Bilguvchi (swt) menga xabar berdiki, U hech bir Payg'ambarga o'zidan oldingi Payg'ambarning umrining yarmichalik umr bermaydi. Albatta, menga chaqiriq keladigan va men javob beradigan vaqt yaqin. Albatta, men mas'ulman, siz ham mas'ulsiz. Endi nima deysiz? Ular dedilar: Biz guvohlik beramizki, siz albatta yetkazdingiz, nasihat qildingiz va jihod qildingiz, Alloh sizga yaxshi mukofot bersin. U zot dedi: Allohdan o'zga iloh yo'qligiga, Muhammad ﷺ Uning bandasi va elchisi ekaniga, Uning jannati haq, Uning do'zaxi haq, o'lim haq, Qiyomat shubhasiz kelishiga va Alloh qabrdagilarni tirilishiga guvohlik bermaysizmi? Ular dedilar: Ha, biz bunga guvohlik beramiz. U zot dedi: Ey Alloh, Sen guvoh bo'l. So'ng dedi: Ey odamlar, eshitmaysizmi? Ular dedilar: Ha. U zot dedi: Albatta, men hovuz (al-Kavsar) oldiga boraman, siz esa mening oldimda hovuzga keltirilasiz. Uning kengligi Sano bilan Basra orasidagicha. Unda yulduzlar soni qadar kumush qadahlar bor. Shuning uchun mendan keyin ikki og'ir narsaga qanday munosabatda bo'lishingizga e'tibor bering. Bir chaqiruvchi: Ey Allohning elchisi, ikki og'ir narsa nima? deb nido qildi. U zot dedi: Ikkisidan kattasi Allohning Kitobidir, uning bir uchi Allohning qo'lida, ikkinchi uchi esa sizlarning qo'lingizda. Shuning uchun unga mahkam yopishing, shunda adashmaysiz. Ikkinchisi, kichikroq, mening ahli baytimdir (‘itratim). Albatta, Eng Mehribon va Eng Bilguvchi (swt) menga xabar berdiki, ular Ali hovuzga yetguncha bizdan ajralmaydilar. Men buni Rabbimdan so'radim. Shuning uchun ularning oldiga o'tib ketmang va ulardan yuz o'girmang, aks holda halok bo'lasiz. So u qo'lidan tutib, Ali ning qo'lini ko'tardi, hatto ularning qo'ltiqlari ko'ringuncha, va hamma uni tanidi. U dedi: "Ey odamlar, mo'minlarga o'zlaridan ham ustunroq kim turadi?" Ular dedilar: "Alloh va Uning Elchisi yaxshiroq biladi." U dedi: "Albatta, Alloh mening mavlamdir (homiyimdir) va men mo'minlarning homiyisiman, shunday ekanki, men ularga o'z nafslaridan ham ustunman. Kimning homiysi men bo'lsam, Ali ham uning homiysidir." U buni uch marta aytdi, Imom Ahmad, hanbaliylar imomi so'zlariga ko'ra, to'rt marta aytdi. So'ngra dedi: "Ey Allohim, kim uni do'st tutsa, unga do'st bo'l, kim uni dushman tutsa, unga dushman bo'l. Kim uni sevsa, sev, kim uni yomon ko'rsa, yomon ko'r, kim unga yordam bersa, yordam ber, kim uni tashlab ketsa, tashlab ket va haqiqat qayerda bo'lsa, u bilan birga bo'lsin. Albatta, hozir bo'lgan guvoh, yo'q bo'lganga xabar yetkazsin."

"All praise is due to Allah whom we ask for help, believe in and depend upon. We ask Allah to protect us from the evils of our souls and bad deeds, the One whom none can guide whom He causes to go astray or misguide whom He guides. I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His slave and Messenger. As for what follows: O people, verily the The Kind & All-Knowing (swt) has informed me that He does not grant longevity to a Prophet except half the like of the one before him. Verily it is about to be that I will be called and I will respond. Verily I am accountable and you are accountable, so what will you say? They said: We bear witness that verily you have conveyed, advised and struggled so may Allah reward you well. He said: Do you not bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is His slave and Messenger that His paradise is true and His hellfire is true, that death is true, that the Hour will come without any doubt and that Allah will resurrect those in the graves? They said: Yes, we bear witness to this. He said: O Allah, do bear witness. Then he said: O people, will you not listen? They said: Yes. He said: Verily I will go to the cistern (alkauthar) and you will be presented at the cistern, whose breadth is that between Sana’a and Basra, before me. In it are cups of silver the number of which are the number of stars, so look how you take care of the two weighty things after me. An announcer announced: And what are the two weighty things, O Messenger of Allah? He said: The greater of the two weighty things is the Book of Allah, one end of which is in the hand of Allah and the other in your hands so hold fast to it and you will not go astray. The other smaller one is my household (‘utra). Verily the Kind & All-Knowing (swt) informed me that they will not go away until Ali reaches the cistern and I asked that from my Lord. So do not precede them or neglect them and if you do so you will perish. Then he took the hand of Ali and raised it until their armpits were seen and everyone recognised him and he said: O people, who takes precedence before the believers over their own selves? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He said: Verily Allah is my Patron (mawla) and I am the patron of the believers such that I take precedence before them over their own selves. So whoever has me as his patron then Ali is his patron. He said this three times, and in the words of Imam Ahmad, Imam of the Hanbalis, four times. Then he said: O Allah, befriend whoever befriends him and become an enemy to whoever takes him as an enemy. Love whoever loves him and hate whoever hates him, support whoever supports him and abandon whoever abandons him, and let the truth be with him wherever he is resides. Verily, let the witness who is present inform the (one who is) absent.’”

3. Ushbu so‘zlarni aytayotganlar, Rasululloh ﷺ Ali (ra)ning xalifaligini aniq e’lon qilganlar, o‘z kitoblarida hadislar rivoyat qilganlar. Biz bu hadislarni tadqiq qilish maydonini ularning rivoyatlari bilan belgilamaymiz, garchi shayxlar Al-Buxoriy va Muslim ularni rivoyat qilmagan bo‘lsalar, ular hech qanday ishonchli rivoyatchilar orqali ham naql qilinmagan bo‘lsa va ko‘pchiligi o‘ylab topilgan hadislar qatoriga kirsa ham. Biz ularning rivoyatlarini tadqiqot mavzusi qilmaymiz, ya’ni ular «Bu hadislar sizdan oldin ishonchli rivoyatchilar tomonidan naql qilinmagan, lekin bizdan oldin ishonchli rivoyatchilar tomonidan naql qilingan», deb aytib, hadisni sahih deb hisoblaganlar uni dalil sifatida ishlatsin, deyishlaridan ham tadqiq qilmaymiz. Biz tadqiqot maydonini qilmaymiz; aksincha, tadqiqot mavzusi qilib rivoyatlarda kelgan matnlarning o‘zini olamiz. Bular ular Rasululloh ﷺ Aliyni o‘zlaridan keyin xalifa etib tayinlaganiga dalil qilib olgan matnlar bo‘lib, bu hadislar «viloyat» hadislari deb ataladi. Ulardan ba’zilarini keltiramiz, qolganlari esa xuddi shu ma’noni, hatto xuddi shu so‘zlarni ham o‘z ichiga oladi.

3. Those who say that the Messenger (saw) clearly announced the Khilafah of Ali (ra) narrated ahadith in their books. As for these ahadith, we will not make the place of research in them their narrations, despite the fact that the two sheikhs Al-Bukhari and Muslim did not narrate them, nor were they narrated via any trustworthy narrators and most of them are among the fabricated ahadith. We will not make their narrations the subject of research such that they say that these ahadith were not narrated by trustworthy narrators before you but were narrated by trustworthy narrators before us so that the one for whom the hadith is authenticated uses it as an evidence. We will not make that the domain of research; rather we will make the matter of research the texts themselves as they came in the narrations. These are the texts from which they deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali to be the Khalifah after him—and these ahadith are known as the ahadith of “wilayah”—from which we will present some of them and the rest carry the same meaning and even the same wordings.

a) Abu Dovud at-Tayolisiy Ibn Abbos (ra) dan rivoyat qiladi: Allohning Elchisi ﷺ Ali ibn Abu Solib (ra) ga shunday dedilar:

a) Abu Dawud At-Tayalisi narrated from ‘Ibn Abbas (ra) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra):

4. Ba'zi kishilar rivoyat qilgan hadislar bor, ularda Elchi (ﷺ) Ali (ra) ning xalifaligini ochiq e'lon qilgan deyiladi. Bu hadislarni hech bir ishonchli kishi rivoyat qilmagan va ularning aksariyati to'qib chiqarilgan hadislardir. Biz ularni sanad jihatidan tekshirish uchun keltirmayapmiz, ya'ni rivoyat qiluvchilar uchun ularning sahihligini da'vo qilish maqsadida emas. Aksincha, ularni matnlari nima deyilganiga ko'ra o'rganish uchun keltiramiz. Bu hadislarda Elchi (ﷺ) ning Ali (ra) bilan birodarligi va uni o'zidan keyin voris qilib tayinlashi bayon etilgan. Biz ulardan bir nechtasini keltiramiz, qolganlari esa xuddi shu ma'noni, hatto xuddi shu so'zlarni ham o'z ichiga oladi.

4. There are ahadith narrated by those who say that the Messenger (saw) openly declared the Khilafah of Ali (ra). These ahadith have not been narrated by any trustworthy person and most of them are fabricated ahadith. We present them not to research them from the angle of their narration so that they are claimed to be authenticated for those who narrate them. Rather we present them to make the point of research their texts according to what came in their texts. These ahadith contain the brotherhood of the Messenger (saw) with Ali (ra), and making him the heir after him. We present a few of them with the remainder carrying the same meaning and even the same wordings.

a) Payg'ambar ﷺ muhojirlar o'rtasida birodarlik o'rnatdi va o'zi uchun Ali (ra)ni tanladi. Birinchi birodarlik haqidagi hadisda kelgan narsa shunday: "Shunda Ali dedi: Ey Allah Elchisi ﷺ, haqiqatan ham, boshqalarni, mendan tashqari sahobalaringizni, qilgan ishingizni ko'rganimda, jonim tanamni tark etdi va orqam sinib ketdi. Agar bu mendan g'azablanganingizning alomati bo'lsa, faqat sizga shikoyat qilaman va kechirim so'rayman." Allah Elchisi ﷺ dedi:

a) The Prophet (saw) established a brotherhood between the Muhajirin and chose Ali (ra) for himself. In what came of the hadith of the first brotherhood, “so Ali said: O Messenger of Allah (saw), verily my soul left me and my spine has been broken when I saw you do what you did with your companions other than me. If this is a sign of your anger with me, then I complain only to you and beg your pardon. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

Bu to'rt matn — Payg'ambar (ﷺ) Alini Musoga nisbatan Horunning maqomida qilgan matn, u Allohning Kitobi va Uning Ahli baytini qoldirgan matn, valoyat matni va birodarlik matni — ba'zi musulmonlar Payg'ambar (ﷺ) Alini (ra) o'ziga xalifa etib tayinlagan, ya'ni uni o'zidan keyin xalifa qilgan deb tushungan matnlardir. Keling, ularni birma-bir ko'rib chiqaylik.

These four texts, which are the texts in which the Messenger (saw) made him (Ali) of the status of Harun to Musa, the text that he left the Book of Allah and His progeny, the text of wilayah, and the text of brotherhood, are the texts from which some Muslims deduced that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) i.e. made him the Khalifah after him. Let us take them text by text:

Birinchi matn, ya'ni Alini Muso oldida Horun darajasiga qo'ygan matn, uning ma'nosi nozil bo'lgan vaziyatni va so'zlarining tuzilishini o'rganish orqali aniqlanadi. Vaziyatga kelsak, Payg'ambar ﷺ bu hadisni Tabuk jangi kuni aytgan. Unda Payg'ambar ﷺ o'z o'rnida Madinada musulmonlarning ishlarini nazorat qilish va hukmronlikni boshqarish uchun Muhammad ibn Maslamani (roziyallohu anhu) tayinladi, hazrat Aliyni (roziyallohu anhu) esa o'z oilasi ustiga tayinlab, ularni nazorat qilishni buyurdi. Munofiqlar uni ta'na qilib dedilar: "U uni faqat unga og'ir kelganligi uchun qoldirdi, uning yukini yengillashtirmoqchi bo'ldi". Munofiqlar shunday deganda, Ali (roziyallohu anhu) qurolini olib, Al-Jarfda qarorgoh qilgan Payg'ambar ﷺ bilan uchrashguncha yo'lga chiqdi va dedi:

As for the first text, which is the text which made Ali at the status of Harun to Musa before the Messenger (saw), its meaning is clarified though studying the occcasion in which it was said and studying its wording. As for the occasion, the Messenger (saw) said this hadith on the day of the battle of Tabuk. Therein the Messenger (saw) appointed in Madinah in his place Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) to supervise the Muslims’ affairs and administer the rule, and appointed our master Ali (ra) over his family and commanded him to supervise them. The hypocrites shook him and said: He did not leave him behind except because it had become hard on him he wanted to make it easy for him. When the hypocrites said this, Ali (ra) took his weapon and left until he met the Messenger (saw) who was encamped at Al-Jarf and said:

Voqealarning haqiqati shundaki, u oilasi ustiga tayinlangan edi, shuning uchun bu uning xalifalik ustiga tayinlanganini anglatadi deb bo‘lmaydi, ayniqsa ma’lum bo‘lgani uchun, u ﷺ o‘rniga Muhammad ibn Maslamani hokim qilib tayinlagan va Aliy (roziyalloohu anhu)ni oilasi ustidan nazorat qilishga belgilagan, unga: “Mening oilam va sening oilang” deganida. Bundan tashqari, Rasulullah ﷺ jangga chiqqanida sahobalaridan birini hokimiyat ustiga tayinlagani, bu tayinlangan kishi uning o‘rnidagi xalifa ekanini anglatmaydi, chunki Rasulullah ﷺ jangларда ko‘plarni tayinlagan dalil bor. Al-‘Asheera jangida u Abu Salama ibn Abdul-Asadni Madina ustiga tayinladi, Safvon jangida Zayd ibn Horisani (roziyalloohu anhu) Madina ustiga tayinladi, Banu Lahyan jangida ibn Umm Maktumni (roziyalloohu anhu) Madina ustiga tayinladi va boshqalar. Rasulullah ﷺ jangidan qaytguncha Madina ustiga kimnidir hokim qilib tayinlagani uning xalifalik ustiga tayinlanganini bildirmaydi. Shunday ekan, agar u uni faqat oilasi ustiga tayinlagan bo‘lsa-chi, boshqasini esa jangdan qaytguncha hokimiyatga qo‘ygan bo‘lsa-chi?

The reality of the incident is that he was appointed over his family so it cannot be taken to mean that he was appointed over the Khilafah, particularly when it is known that he (saw) appointed Muhammad bin Maslamah as the ruler in his place and specified Ali (ra) to supervise over his family when he said to him, “my family and your family.” Moreover, the Messenger’s (saw) appointment of one of his companions over the rule when he left for battle does not mean that this appointed person is the Khalifah in his place by the evidence that the Messenger (saw) appointed many in the battles. In the battle of Al-‘Asheera he appointed Abu Salamah bin Abd al-Asad over Madinah, in the battle of Safwan he appointed Zayd bin Haritha (ra) over Madinah, in the battle Banu Lahyan he appointed ibn Umm Maktum (ra) over Madinah, and so on. The appointment by the Messenger (saw) of someone to rule over Madinah until he returns from his battles does not indicate that means his appointment over the Khilafah, so what if he appointed him only over his family while appointing another in authority until he returns from his battle.

Tayinlash bilan bog'liq holda. Payg'ambar ﷺ ning hadisi:

This is in relation to the appointment. As for the saying of the Messenger (saw):

"after my death" ma'nosida emas, chunki bu so'zlar Harun va Muso o'rtasidagi tayinlash hayotlik davrida bo'lganini bildiradi. Harun Muso bilan birga Payg'ambar edi, va Muso g'oyib bo'lgan paytida, uning hayoti davomida, o'z qavmi ustida uning xalifasi (o'rinbosari) edi, vafotidan keyin emas. Shuning uchun Rasululloh ﷺ faqat: "Mendan keyin hech qanday payg'ambar yo'q, faqat..." degan so'zni aytdilar, chunki Harun Muso g'oyib bo'lgan paytda, u hayot ekan, payg'ambar edi. Shu sababli u bu so'zni Ali (roziyallohu anhu) dan payg'ambarlikni inkor etish uchun aytdi. Bundan tashqari, Rasululloh ﷺ Al-Hokim rivoyat qilgan sahih hadisda Harunning Muso hayotligida vafot etganini xabar berganlar. Shuning uchun Harun va Muso, ya'ni o'xshatish qilinganlar orasida vafotdan keyingi tayinlash masalasi mavjud emas edi, demak u Payg'ambar ﷺ va Ali (roziyallohu anhu) da, ya'ni o'xshatuvchilarda ham mavjud emas.

Means after my death as the words are related to appointment during his life. This is because Harun was a Prophet along with Musa during his life not after his death; he was his deputy (khalifa) over his people while he (Musa) was absent during his life not after his death. So the Messenger only made his statement: “Except that there is no Prophet after me” because Harun was a Prophet during Musa’s absence while he lived; so he made this statement in order to negate Prophethood from Ali (ra). Moreover, the Messenger of Allah (saw) informed us in an authenticated hadith narrated by Al-Hakim that Harun died during Musa’s life. So there does not raise the issue of appointment after death as it did not exist in Harun and Musa, who are those with whom resemblance is made, thus it does not exist in the Prophet (saw) and Ali (ra) who are the resemblers.

Bu hadisning ma'nosi xalifalikka tayinlashga hech qanday ishora qilmaydi, va Payg'ambar ﷺ bu hadis orqali Ali (ra)ni o'zlarining vafotlaridan keyin musulmonlar ustidan xalifa etib aniq belgilashni niyat qilganlarini hech qanday tarzda tushunib bo'lmaydi. Muhokama qilinayotgan hadis Tabuk jangi sababli Payg'ambar ﷺ g'oyib bo'lganlarida, Ali (ra)ni Payg'ambar ﷺ oilasi ustiga tayinlash bilan bog'liq. Ushbu hadisda kelgan qolgan rivoyatlarga kelsak, ya'ni uning ﷺ so'zi:

This is the hadith’s meaning nor does it contain any indication to appointment for the Khilafah nor can it be understood in any way that the Messenger (saw) intended by this hadith to clearly state and make Ali (ra) the Khalifah over the Muslims after the Messenger’s (saw) death. The hadith discussed is related to the appointment of Ali (ra) over the Messenger’s (saw) family during his absence due to the battle of Tabuk. As for the remaining narrations which came in this hadith i.e. his (saw) saying:

Ba'zilari Al-Buxoriy va Muslim o'zlarining hadis to'plamlarida 'Omir va Ibrohim, Sa'dning ikki o'g'li orqali rivoyat qilgan ishonchli rivoyatlar, boshqalari esa ishonchli bo'lmagan rivoyatlardir, ammo barchasi bir xil matn bilan kelgan. Bu hadis Tabukda va boshqa vaqtlarda aytilgan degani. Bunga javob shuki, ishonchli rivoyatlar voqeaning bir qismi, ya'ni Payg'ambar ﷺ ning so'zlari voqeadan ajratilgan holda kelgan rivoyatlardir va bu Tabuk voqeasidan boshqa voqea ekanligini anglatmaydi. Hadis rivoyat qiluvchilari va to'plovchilari ko'pincha hadisning yoki voqeaning bir qismini dalil o'rnida keltirib, qisqartirib rivoyat qiladilar. Agar hadis faqat Tabuk voqeasi haqida bo'lmay, Tabukda va boshqa vaqtlarda aytilgan deb qabul qilsak ham, bu Payg'ambar ﷺ ning Tabukda va boshqa vaqtlarda Ali (roziyallohu anhu) ni oilasi ustidan doimiy ravishda hokim qilganini anglatmaydi. Shuningdek, bu Payg'ambar ﷺ vafotidan keyin uning (Alloh yuzini ulug'lasin) xalifalik ustiga tayinlanganini ham anglatmaydi. Hadis so'zi va ma'nosining sharhi faqat shuni ko'rsatadi: "Sen mening g'oibligimda oilam ustidan hokim bo'lishingdan rozi emasmisan? Xuddi Horun Muso g'oibligida uning o'rnida qolgani kabi. Faqat shu farqki, Horun payg'ambar edi, sen esa payg'ambar emassan, chunki mendan keyin payg'ambarlik yo'q." Bu Muslimning Omir ibn Sa'd orqali, u otasidan rivoyat qilgan hadisida kelgan.

Some of them are authenticated narrations like those by Al-Bukhari and Muslim in their hadith from ‘Amir and Ibrahim, the two sons of S’ad, while others are not authenticated, but all of them came with the same text. This means that the hadith was said in Tabuk and at other times. The response to this is that the authentic narrations are a narration which is a part of the incident i.e. narrations with the Messenger’s (saw) words alone separated from the incident which does not mean that it is an incident other than the incident of Tabuk. Narrators and collectors of hadith frequently narrate a part of a hadith or a part of an incident, shortening it to the place of evidence. Even if we accept that the hadith was not only about the incident of Tabuk but was said in Tabuk and other times, then this would mean that the Messenger (saw) appointed our master Ali (ra) over his family permanently during Tabuk and at other times; nor would it mean his appointment (may Allah ennoble his face) over the Khilafah after the Messenger’s (saw) death. All that the explanation of the hadith’s word and meaning indicate is: Are you not pleased that I appointed you over my family during my absence just like Harun supervised for Musa during his absence, except that Harun was a Prophet and you are not a Prophet because there is no Prophet after my Prophethood. This came in Muslim’s narration from Amir bin S’ad from his father:

i.e. after my Prophethood. Bu, Ali (ra)ning Paygʻambar ﷺ bilan munosabatidagi holati Horun (a.s.)ning Muso (a.s.) bilan munosabatiga o‘xshatilganining o‘xshashligidir, ya’ni tayinlash va boshqa hech narsa emas, uning (ﷺ) gʻoyib bo‘lgan vaqtida tayinlash va boshqa hech narsa emas, hamda uning oilasi ustidan tayinlash — hadisning matnida to‘liq kelganidek. Hadisning qancha marta takrorlanishi uning ma’nosini o‘zgartirmaydi va unga boshqa ma’no berilmaydi. Shunday ekan, Tabuk voqeasidagi tayinlash faqat Paygʻambarning (ﷺ) oilasi ustidan bo‘lgan, bu shubhasiz isbotlangan. Tabuk voqeasidan tashqari boshqa rivoyatlar esa xuddi Tabukdagi matnni so‘zi va ma’nosi bilan bayon qilgan, lekin Tabuk voqeasidagi cheklovni — ya’ni oilani — zikr qilmagan. Balki ular hech qanday cheklovni zikr qilmagan. Shuning uchun biz ularni Tabuk rivoyatida zikr qilinganiga qarab o‘lchaymiz. Bunga sabab shuki, Tabuk rivoyati oilaga cheklangan, boshqa rivoyatlar esa tayinlashda hech qanday cheklovsiz kelgan, shuning uchun cheklanmaganini cheklanganiga qarab o‘lchaymiz. Shuningdek, boshqa rivoyatlarni umumiy deb aytish ham to‘g‘ri emas, chunki hadisning so‘zlari umumiy so‘zlardan emas. Barcha rivoyatlarning matni — “Sen rozi emasmisan?”, yoki “Albatta sen”, yoki “Sen” kabi rivoyatlar hamda Horunning Muso bilan mavqeiga o‘xshash boshqa so‘zlar — barchasi Horunning Muso bilan bo‘lgan aniq mavqeiga xoslangan, umumiy mavqega emas. Faqat Horunning Musoga bo‘lgan mavqei ba’zi rivoyatlarda hech qanday cheklovsiz kelgan, ba’zilarida esa oilaga cheklangan. Shuning uchun cheklanmagan rivoyatni cheklangan rivoyatga qarab o‘lchaymiz, natijada barcha rivoyatlar oilaga cheklangan bo‘ladi.

i.e. after my Prophethood. This is the similitude with which the Messenger (saw) compared Ali (ra) in relation to him just like Harun in relation to Musa i.e. the appointment and nothing else, appointment during his absence and nothing else, and appointment over his family as came in the hadith’s text in its entirety. The frequency with which a hadith is repeated does not change its meaning to give it an alternative meaning. So the appointment in Tabuk was only over the Messenger’s (saw) family as is proven without doubt, while the other narrations in other than Tabuk conveyed the same text mentioned in Tabuk in words and meaning without mentioning the restriction in the incident of Tabuk i.e. the family. Rather, they do not mention any restriction at all thus we measure them upon what was mentioned in the narration of Tabuk. This is because the narration of Tabuk is restricted to the family while the other narrations are free of any restriction in the appointment so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted. Nor should one say that the other narrations are general as the words of the hadith are not from the general words as the texts of all the narrations whether the narration: “Are you not pleased” or the narration: “Verily you” or the naration: “You” and the similar which is of the weightage of Harun with Musa; all these words are specific to a specific status which is of the status of Harun with Musa which is not of the general status. Except that the status of Harun to Musa came unrestricted in some of the narrations which were not restricted by any restriction, while they were restricted to the family in some of the narrations so we measure the unrestricted upon the restricted such that all the narrations are restricted to the family.

Musa Alayhissalom Allohdan so'ragan boshqa masalalarga kelsak, u o'z so'zida shunday degan edi: Note: The instruction says never write ﷺ after other prophets, so I used "Alayhissalom" as written in the original's honorific style for Musa. Since the source text does not spell the honorific out, the translation above adds it as an Uzbek rendering, which is what the source's style requires for Musa.

As for the rest of the matters which Musa sought from Allah in his statement:

Harun maqomi va Musoga nisbatan uning o'rni, shuningdek, uni xalifa etib tayinlash masalasiga bu gap daxl qilmaydi, chunki bu Musoning Allohga qilgan duosidir: u akasini o'ziga yordamchi qilishni va uni o'zi bilan birga payg'ambarlik bilan ta'minlashni so'ragan. Musa Allohdan (SWT) Horunni o'z ishiga sherik qilishni so'ragan narsalar payg'ambarlik va risolat bo'lgani uchun, sherik qilish faqat shu ishlardagina bo'lgan, hukmronlikda emas, chunki Musa hukmdor emas, balki faqat payg'ambar bo'lgan. Bundan tashqari, bu so'rov unga yordam berish va uni o'z ishiga sherik qilishni so'rash edi, uni (hokimiyatga) tayinlash haqida so'rov emas edi.

There is no place for them in relation to the status of Harun to Musa nor the appointment as the Khalifa since it is a prayer which Musa Made to Allah to make his brother an assistant to him and to give him the Prophethood along with him because the matters which Musa prayed to Allah (swt) to associate Harun with him upon were Prophethood and the Message so the association was only in these matters not the rule, as Musa was not a ruler but only a Prophet. Moreover, the request was a request for assistance for him and associating him in his matter, not a request for his appointment (in rule).

Bundan tashqari, bu gaplar Muso alayhissalomning Horunga bo‘lgan martabasiga ishora emas; balki Muso alayhissalomning Horunga bo‘lgan martabasiga ishora uni o‘zi yo‘q paytida qavmi ustiga tayinlaganidadir. Demak, uning oldidagi martabasi shundan iboratki, u o‘zi yo‘q paytida qavmiga g‘amxo‘rlik qilgan. Payg‘ambarlikda yordam va sherikchilik ma’nosi bo‘lishi haqida Rasulullohning ﷺ "Horunning Musoga bo‘lgan martabasi kabi" degan so‘zlarida hech qanday asos yo‘q; aslida bu ma’no qavmga tayinlash bilan cheklanadi va matnlar bundan boshqa hech qanday ma’noni ko‘tarmaydi.

Above all this, these matters are not an indication to the status of Musa to Harun; rather an indication for the status of Musa to Harun is his appointing him over his people during his absence; so his status before him is that he took care of his people during his absence. There is no existence for assistance and association in the Prophethood in the statement of the Messenger: “of the status of Harun to Musa” infact the meaning is restricted to the appointment over the people and the texts do not carry any meaning other than this.

Musо ҳукмдор бўлган, деб айтилган, чунки унга ҳукм қилиш учун шариат нозил қилинган, унда ечимлар ва жазолар мавжуд бўлган, ва у Байт ал-Мақдисни эгаллашни niyat қилган қўшин сардори бўлган, шу пайтда унинг қавми унга айтган:

It has been said that Musa was a ruler because a Shari’ah was revealed to him to rule by ,as there are solutions and punishments within it, and he was a leader of an army which intended to occupy Bait al-Maqdis when his people said to him:

Demak, uning Horunni o‘z qavmi ustiga tayinlashi payg‘ambarlik va hokimiyat bo‘yicha tayinlash edi. Bunga javob shuki, Muso hokim bo‘lmagan, Qur’onda yoki boshqa joyda uning Bani Isroil ustidan hukm kuch va hokimiyat bilan ijro etgani yoki ularning hokimi bo‘lgani rivoyat qilinmagan. Bani Isroilni Musoning shariati bilan boshqargan kishilar Muso o‘zi yoki uning hayoti davrida emas, balki undan keyin kelgan payg‘ambarlar, masalan, Dovud, Sulaymon va boshqa podshohlar edi. Muso qo‘shinlar ustidan rahbarlik qilishiga kelsak, bu hech qachon bo‘lmagan. Moida surasining 19-oyatidan 26-oyatigacha bo‘lgan oyatlarda Muso qo‘shin boshlig‘i ekanligini ko‘rsatadigan hech narsa yo‘q; aksincha, ularda Musoning qavmini Muqaddas yurtga kirishga chaqirgani bayon qilingan. Ular rad etib, u yerda zolim va jabbor xalq borligini, ular chiqib ketmagunicha hech qachon kirmasliklarini aytdilar, ular Musodan va Rabbisidan borib jang qilishni so‘radilar, lekin u bormadi. Natijada ular qirq yil davomida cho‘lda sarson bo‘lib qoldilar. Shariatning, jazolar va yechimlar bilan birga, Musoga vahiy qilinishiga kelsak, bu Musoning shu shariat bilan hukm yuritganini anglatmaydi; haqiqatda u uni olib kelib, Bani Isroilga yetkazgan. U ularni Bayt al-Maqdisga olib bormoqchi bo‘ldi, lekin ular cho‘lda adashdilar va uning davri tugaguncha barqarorlashmadilar. Surgun jazosi tugagach, ular ko‘chib, orasidagi podshohlar va payg‘ambarlar tomonidan Musoning shariati bilan boshqarildilar, buni Qur’on bir necha surada bayon qilgan. Bundan tashqari, Horun tayinlangan oyatlar aniq ko‘rsatadiki, bu Muso Allohu taolo bilan uchrashish uchun ketganda, uning nomidan payg‘ambarlik bo‘yicha tayinlash edi. Bu A’rof surasining 141-oyatidadir.

So his appointment of Harun over his people was an appointment in Prophethood and also in authority. The response to this is that Musa was not a ruler, nor is it narrated in the Qur’an or elsewhere that he would execute the rules upon the children of Israel (Banu Israil) by strength and the authority or that he was a ruler over them. Those who ruled Banu Israil with the Shari’ah of Musa were not Musa himself or in his lifetime, rather it was those Prophet who came after him like Dawud, Sulayman and other kings. As for Musa’s leadership over the armies, it never occurred. The ayaat which are in Surah Al-Maidah from ayah 19 to ayah 26 do no have anything within them which indicates Musa’s leadership over the army; rather what is within them is that Musa (as) requested his people to enter the Holy Land. They refused and said to him that there are giant aggressive people within it so they would never enter until these giants left; they asked him and his Lord to go and fight but he did not go so the result was their exile for fourty years in the wilderness. As for the revelation of the Shari’ah to Musa (as) with solutions and punishments, this does not mean that Musa (as) ruled with these; rather the reality is that he came with it and conveyed it to Banu Israil. He tried to take them to Bait al-Maqdis but they strayed in the wilderness and they did not stabilise until his period had ended. After their punishment with the exile ended, they moved and were ruled by kings and Prophets among them by the Shari’ah of Musa, which is stated by the Qur’an in more than one Surah. Moreover, the ayaat in which Harun was appointed are explicit that it was an appointment on behalf of Musa in Prophethood when Musa went to meet Allah (swt), which is in Surah Al-‘Araf from ayah 141:

Bularning barchasi Payg'ambarlik va unga tayinlash, lavhalarni (Muso tomonidan) tashlab yuborishi, Bani Isroilning buzoqqa sig'inishga kirishgani va shunga o'xshash masalalarga tegishli; ularning hech birida hukmronlik va hokimiyat bilan eng oz aloqasi bo'lgan narsa yo'q. Ularning hokimiyat bilan bog'liq ekanligiga shubha qilish mumkin emas, shuning uchun Muso hukmdor bo'lganligiga dalil yo'q va u Horunni hukmronlikka hech qachon tayinlamagan.

All of these are related to the Prophethood and appointment in it, and the throwing of the tablets (by Musa), and the Banu Israil taking to worship the calf and the like; there is nothing within them with the slightest relationship to rule and authority. It is not possible to suspect that it is related with the rule and authority, so there is no evidence that Musa was a ruler and he never appointed Harun in the rule at all.

Bu barcha nozil bo‘lgan hadislarning ma’nosi — ular sabab bilan kelgan bo‘lsin, masalan Tabuk voqeasi, yoki sababsiz kelgan bo‘lsin — shuni ko‘rsatadiki, Payg‘ambar ﷺ o‘z hayotlik vaqtlarida g‘oyib bo‘lganlarida Ali (roziyallohu anhu)ni oilasi ustidan nazoratchi qilib qoldirgan, худди Muso Horunni o‘z qavmi ustidan g‘oyib bo‘lganida nazoratchi qilgani kabi. Bu ish, ya’ni Payg‘ambar ﷺning Ali (roziyallohu anhu)ni tayinlashi bilan, Ali Payg‘ambar ﷺ uchun Muso uchun Horunning mavqeiga o‘xshash mavqega ega bo‘ldi. Bu hadislarda Payg‘ambar ﷺ Ali (roziyallohu anhu)ning Allohning Elchisi ﷺ vafotidan keyin musulmonlar ustidan hukmronlikda Xalifa bo‘lishini aytganiga dalolat qiluvchi hech narsa yo‘q.

This is the meaning of all the revealed ahadith whether they came with a cause like the incident of Tabuk or without any cause, which indicate that the Messenger (saw) made Ali (ra) supervise his family while he was absent during his lifetime similar to how Musa made Harun supervise his people while he was absent during his lifetime. With this action i.e. the Messenger’s (saw) appointment of Ali (ra), Ali became to the Messenger (saw) comparable to the status of Harun to Musa. There is no indication in these ahadith that the Messenger (saw) stated that Ali (ra) would become the Khalifah over the Muslims in ruling after the Messenger of Allah (saw)’s death.

Ikkinchi matn va G‘adir Xum hadisiga kelsak, Muslim rivoyatida ishonchli tarzda kelgan naql Muslimlarni Allohning Kitobiga va Uning Payg‘ambari ﷺ uyining ahliga mahkam yopishishga, ularga iltifot ko‘rsatishga, ularni hurmat qilishga va ularga ozor bermaslikka da’vat etadi. Unda Payg‘ambar ﷺ o‘z oilasini xalifalik ustiga tayinlaganini ko‘rsatadigan hech narsa yo‘q. Hadisda shunday deyilgan: “Mening uyimning ahliga kelsak, men sizlarni Alloh oldida uyimning ahli to‘g‘risida ogohlantiraman”. Bu so‘zlarda Payg‘ambar ﷺ uy ahlini o‘limlaridan keyin xalifalik orqali odamlar ustidan hukm yuritadigan xalifalar qilganini bildiradigan hech narsa yo‘q. Bu so‘zlar o‘zining aniq matni (mantuq) va ma’nosi bilan shunchalik ravshanki, Payg‘ambar ﷺ uy ahlini yoki ulardan birortasini o‘zidan keyin xalifalik orqali Muslimlarni boshqarishga tayinlagan deb hech qachon tushunib bo‘lmaydi. Ikkinchi va uchinchi rivoyatlarga hamda ularga o‘xshash barcha rivoyatlarga kelsak, ular ichida kelgan narsani o‘zgartirmaydi. Bu rivoyatlarda ikki masala bor. Birinchisi, Allohni Uning so‘zida homiy qilib olish.

As for the second text and the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, in the authenticated narration i.e. the narration of Muslim, it exhorts Muslims to hold fast to the Book of Allah and the family of his (saw) house, to be gracious to them, to honour and not to hurt them. There is no indication within it that the Messenger (saw) appointed his family over the Khilafah. The hadith states: “As for the people of my house, I exhort you before Allah in the people of my house”; there is nothing in this that indicates that he made the family of his house the Khulafaa in the rule over the people after his death. The words are clear in their stated text (mantuq) and meaning such that it can never be understood that he appointed the family of his house, or any one of them, to rule Muslims via the Khilafah after him. As for the second and third narrations, and all narrations similar to them, they do not change what came within it. There are two matters in these narrations. First, making Allah the patron in his statement:

Ushbu ko‘plab va turlicha rivoyatlarga qaramay, bu hadislarning barchasida bu ikki masaladan boshqa hech narsa yo‘q. Birinchi masala, ya’ni do‘stlik masalasi, bu matndan so‘ng to‘g‘ridan-to‘g‘ri (wilayat) haqidagi hadislar muhokamasida ko‘rib chiqiladi. Ikkinchi masala esa Muslimonlarga Payg‘ambarning avlodi, ya’ni uning ahli bayti bilan yaxshi munosabatda bo‘lish, ularga mehribon bo‘lish, ularni hurmat qilish va ularni ranjitmaslik haqida nasihat berishdan farq qilmaydi, chunki ular ular haqida so‘raladilar. Shuningdek, uy ahli va Allohning Kitobi (swt) Qiyomat kunigacha bir-biriga bog‘langan bo‘lib qoladi. Ushbu hadis va G‘adir Xum hadisi ichida Muslimonlarga Payg‘ambarning avlodiga yaxshilik qilishni nasihat qilishdan ortiq narsa yo‘q; unda Alining (ra) yoki uning ahli baytining Rasulullohning (saw) vafotidan keyin xalifalikka tayinlanganini ko‘rsatadigan hech narsa yo‘q. G‘adir Xum hadisida keltirilgan barcha oldingi rivoyatlarga ko‘ra, Payg‘ambarning (saw) so‘zlarida tayinlash qayerda?

There is nothing other than these two matters in all these ahadith, despite all their number and differing narrations. As for the first matter, which is the friendship, we shall discuss it during the discussion upon the ahadith of (wilayat) directly after this text. As for the second matter, it does not differ from being an advice to Muslims to be good to his progeny,, the people of his house, by being gracious to them, honouring and not annoying them as they will be questioned about them. Also that the family of the house and the Book of Allah (swt) will remain linked until the Day of Judgement. There exists nothing in this ahadith and the ahadith of Ghadeer Khum more than advising Muslims to do good to his progeny; there is nothing within in it indicating the appointment of Ali (ra), or the people of his house, over the Khilafah after the death of the Messenger of Allah (saw). Where is the appointment in the Messenger’s (saw) statement according to all previous narrations narrated in the hadith of Ghadeer Khum:

Arab tilida: al-waliyy (do'st) dushmanga qarama-qarshidir, shuning uchun aytiladi: u uni do'st qilib oldi. Al-mawla – yordamchi va ega (as-sayyid). Do'stlik dushmanlikka qarama-qarshidir. Va al-waliyy: voyaga yetmaganlarning ishlariga, masalan, ota va bobo kabi, g'amxo'rlik qiluvchi kishi. Nikoh shartnomasining, mol-mulkning va yetim ishining waliysi – ishga g'amxo'rlik qilib, uning homiysi bo'lgan kishidir. "Lisan al-'Arab" lug'atida (arab tilining lug'ati) shunday deyilgan: "Al-waliy Allohning (SWT) ismlaridan biri bo'lib, U An-Nosir (yordamchi)dir va U koinot va barcha mavjudotlarning ishlarini boshqaruvchi (Al-Mutawalli) hamda ularning ustidan nazorat qiluvchi (Al-Qoim)dir." Shuningdek, aytilgan: "Al-waliy – rostgo'y (as-siddiq), yordamchi, ergashuvchi (at-tab'iy) va sevimli kishidir." Abu al-Abbos Payg'ambarning (ﷺ) so'zi haqida aytgan: "Kimning men mavlosiman, uning mavlosi Aliydir", ya'ni kim meni sevsa va do'st tutsa, u ham Aliyni do'st tutishi kerak. Bularning hech biri hukm va hokimiyat ma'nosini bildirmaydi. Bu hadisning sharhlovchilari orasida ham, uni Ali (roziyallohu anhu)ning xalifaligi uchun aniq matn deb aytganlar ham, "mawla" so'zi tilshunoslik jihatidan hukm va hokimiyat ma'nosini anglatadi, deb aniq dalil keltira olmaydilar. Masalan, Shayx Abd al-Husayn Ahmad al-Amiyniy an-Najafiy o'zining "Al-G'adir" kitobida G'adir hadisini sharhlab shunday deydi: "Bu o'rinda tadqiqotchi uchun 'mawla' so'zi eng munosib kishi degan ma'noda kelgan, degan fikrdan boshqa panoh qolmaydi, hatto biz uning bu ma'nolardan biri ekanini tan olsak ham va tilshunoslikda bu so'zning bir necha ma'nosi borligini inobatga olsak ham." "Mawla" so'zi yigirma yetti ma'noda kelgan, ularning orasida hukm va hokimiyat ma'nosi tilga olinmagan. U dedi: "Mavlo" so'zining yigirma yetti ma'nogacha yetadigan ma'nolarini bilganimizdan keyin, hadisda uning o'z ma'nosiga mos keladigan ma'nodan boshqasi bilan kelishi mumkin emas, (va bu ma'nolar) quyidagilardir:

In the (Arabic) language: the friend (al-waliyy) is opposite to the enemy so it is said: He took him as a friend. The (mawla) is the supporter and the master (as-sayyid). Friendship is opposite to enemity. And the waliy: One who takes care of affairs of the minor like the father and grandfather. The waliy of the marriage contract, the properties and the orphan is the one who takes care of the affair and becomes his sponsor. In the Mu’jam Lisan al-‘Arab (an Arabic dictionary): “Al-waliy is among the names of Allah (swt) who is the Helper (An-Nasir) and he is the One in Charge (Al-Mutawalli) of the affairs of the universe and all creatures, the Supervisor (Al-Qaim) over them.” And it said: “The waliy is the truthful (as-siddiq), the Helper, the follower (at-tab’i) and the beloved.” Abu Al-‘Abbas said about his statement (saw): “The one for whom I am his (mawla), then Ali is his (mawla)”i.e. whoever loves and befriends me should befriend him. None of this is the meaning of rule (hukm) and authority (sultan). Even the interpreters of this hadith who say that it is a clear text for the Khilafah of Ali (ra) are unable to come with any clear meaning in the language that the word “mawla” means the rule and authority linguistically. For example, Sheikh Abd al-Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi says the following in his book “Al Ghadeer” in explaining the hadith of Al-Ghadeer: “At this point there no longer remains for the researcher any refuge from committing suicide that “mawla” came with the meaning of the foremost suitable in something even if we condescend that this is one of its meaning and that linguistically it is a word with several meanings.” The word “mawla” came with twenty seven meanings without mentioning the rule and authority among them. He said: After we know about the meanings of “mawla” which reach up to twenty seven meanings, it is not possible that it comes with a meaning in the hadith except with that which conforms to it in meaning, (and these meanings) are:

1) Rabbim.

1) The Lord.

2) Amakisi (otasining ukasi).

2) Paternal uncle.

3) Amakisining o‘g‘li.

3) Paternal uncle’s son.

O'g'il.

4) Son.

5) Qiz farzandining o'g'li.

5) Daughter’s son.

6) Ozod qilingan qul.

6) The slave who is freed.

7) Qul ozod qiladigan kishi.

7) One who frees a slave.

Qul.

8) Slave.

Egasi.

9) Owner.

Ergashuvchi.

10) Follower.

1) Baxtli bo‘lgan kishi.

11) One who is blessed.

Hamkor.

12) Partner.

13) Ittifoqchi/Ittifoqdosh (halif).

13) Confederate/Ally (haleef).

Sahoba.

14) Companion.

15) Qo'shni.

15) Neighbour.

Mehmon.

16) Guest.

Qarindoshlik (kuyov-kelin tomonidan)

17) In-law.

18) Qarindosh (qareeb).

18) Relative (qareeb).

19) Benefaktor/Saxiy.

19) Benefactor/Beneficent.

20) Do'stlaridan yo'qolgan/vafot etgan (faqeed).

20) One lost from his friends/dead (faqeed).

21) Do‘st (waliy).

21) Friend (waliy).

22) Biror ishda eng munosib/eng loyiq bo'lgan kishi.

22) Foremost/More suitable in something.

23) Yetakchi (sayyid), ya’ni qul egasi yoki qulni ozod qilgan kishi bo‘lmagan kishi.

23) Leader (sayyid) who is not the owner or one who freed a slave.

Sevikli.

24) Beloved.

Yordamchi.

25) Helper.

26) Ishda vakil (mutassarif).

26) Agent (mutassarif) in the matter.

27) Ish boshqaruvchisi (mutavalli).

27) The one in charge (mutawalli) of the matter.

Bu ma'nolar keldi, va "mawla" so'zining hukmronlik va hokimiyatni bildiruvchi aniq bir ma'nosi ham kelmadi. Shunday qilib, u bu ma'noni hadis bilan bog'lab izohlaganida, o'zi tanlagan ma'nolardan biriga yetdi va shunday dedi:

These are the meanings which came and not even one clear meaning came for the word “mawla” to denote rule and authority. Thus when he interpreted this meaning in relation to the hadith, he reached one of its meanings which he chose and said:

Demak, bundan ko'rinadiki, "vali" so'zi hukmdor ma'nosida kelmagan va "al-muvalat" so'zi ham Qur'onda, hadisda yoki tilda hukmronlik ma'nosida kelmagan. So'zlar yo lug'aviy, yo shar'iy ma'nosi bilan izohlanadi. Unda bu hadislarning "vali" va "muvalat" so'zlari Ali (r.a.) va uning oilasiga xalifalik berilishini bildiradi, degan izoh qayerdan olingan? Bu hadislardan "vali" yoki "muvalat" so'zlarining qaysi ma'nosini olib ko'rsak ham, matnlarning birortasida hukmronlikni nazorat qilish ma'nosi chiqmaydi. To'g'ri, agar "vali" so'zini "amr" so'zi bilan bog'lasak, uning ma'nosi hukmdor bo'ladi va "waliyyu-l-amr" deyiladi. Ammo "al-wilayah" hadisi deb ataladigan hadislarda "vali" so'zi hech bir rivoyatda, boshqa rivoyatlarda ham "amr" so'zi bilan birga kelmagan. Bu esa hadislardan Rasululloh ﷺ dan keyin xalifalikni boshqarish ma'nosini inkor etadi.

So it is apparent from this that the word did not come with the meaning of ruler and that “al muwalat” did not come with the meaning of rule, neither in the Qur’an or Hadith or the language. Words are interpreted either by their linguistic or Shari’ah meanings, so from where was the explanation of this ahadith taken that the “waliy” and “muwalat” means giving the Khilafah to Ali (ra) and his family? When we follow those who deduced by these ahadith in any of the meanings of “waliy” and “muwalat”, there never comes the meaning of supervising the rule in any of the texts. It is true that if we relate the word “waliy” with the word “amr”, then its meaning becomes the ruler and it is said “waliyy al-amr”. In the ahadith which they call the ahadith of “al-wilayah”, the word “amr” never comes together with the word “waliy” in any of their narrations, or any other narrations, which negates the meaning of taking care of the Khilafah after the Messenger of Allah (saw) from the ahadith.

Haqiqatan ham, “wilayah” so‘zi o‘zi bilan, ya’ni “mawla”, “waliy” yoki “muwalat” so‘zlaridan farqli o‘laroq, ko‘p ma’noli so‘z bo‘lib, unga yordam (nusra) va hokimiyat, ya’ni boshqaruv ma’nolari ham kiradi. Shu sababli, Kanz al-‘Ammal kitobida kelgan, “wilayah” so‘zi bilan kelgan hadisga tayanib, til ma’nosiga ko‘ra bu so‘z boshqaruv degan ma’noni anglatadi, deyish mumkin. Ammo bunga javob shuki, bu so‘z hadisda do‘st tutish ma’nosida kelgan, buni hadisning matni ko‘rsatib turibdi. Uni dalil sifatida keltirayotganlar naql qilgan matni quyidagicha:

It is true that the word “wilayah” alone not the words “mawla” or “waliy” or “muwalat” is a word with many meanings including support (nusra) and authority i.e. the rule. In the ahadith which they narrated is the hadith mentioned in Kanz al-’Ammal which came with the word “wilayah” so one may say this means rule according to what the language states. The response is that this word came in the hadith by the meaning of taking as a friend which is indicated by the hadith’s text. Its text, according to what is narrated by those who use it as evidence, is:

Hokimiyatni unga berish (sulton) menga berish bilan bir xil deb tushunish mumkin emas; aksincha, yagona tushuncha shuki, kim unga yordam bersa, u menga yordam bergan bo‘ladi. Shunday ekan, ravo bo‘lgan barcha hadislar – unda Ali (roziyallohu anhu) Payg‘ambardan (ﷺ) keyin har bir mo‘minning “waliy”si va “mavlo”si ekani, shuningdek, unga “muvalat” ko‘rsatish va do‘st tutish lozimligi, chunki uning “wilayah”si “wilayah”dir – aytilgan bu hadislar til va Qur’on matnlariga ko‘ra, yuqorida zikr etilgan hadislarda kelgan so‘zning ma’nosi yoki jumladagi o‘rni jihatidan hokimiyatni boshqarishni anglatishi hech qanday tarzda mumkin emas. Demak, bular Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) Aliyni o‘zidan keyin xalifalikka tayinlaganining dalili emas, shuning uchun ularni dalil qilib bahslashish o‘z kuchini yo‘qotadi. Bu yerda ikki masalaga e’tibor berish kerak. Birinchisi: so‘z bir aniq asosdan tuzilgan bo‘lishi, lekin bu asosning barcha tuslanmalari ma’nodosh bo‘lib, ulardan biri boshqasining ma’nosini olishi shart emas. Tilda bir ma’no uchun bir necha so‘z bo‘lishi mumkin yoki so‘zga arablar belgilagan yagona ma’no berilib, uni boshqa so‘zga bermasligi mumkin. So‘zlarning tuslanmalari o‘xshash bo‘lishi ma’nosining o‘xshashligini bildirmaydi; aksincha, so‘z tuslanish asosiga qaramay, arablar unga belgilagan ma’noni oladi. “Ja’a” va “aja’a” so‘zlari bir asosdan; shunga qaramay, “ja’a” ning ma’nosi “keldi”, “aja’a” ning ma’nosi esa “panoh berdi” (alja’a)dir. “An-nadhuv” so‘zining “nun” harfi kasra bilan o‘qilsa, “ozg‘in tuya” degani, “nun” harfi damma bilan o‘qilsa, “kiyim” degani. "Mavla" so'zi haqida aytadigan bo'lsak, uning "hokim" ma'nosini bildirmasligi, chunki uning ma'nolaridan biri "ishning ijrochisi" va "ishni boshqaruvchi" hamda odamlarning eng ustuni ekani, bu esa hokimiyat va boshqaruvni anglatadi, degani emas. Sababi, "waliy al-amr" so'zi ham xuddi shu tuslanish tufayli hokimiyat va boshqaruvni anglatadi. "Mavla" esa "waliy al-amr"dan ma'no jihatidan xuddi ishning ijrochisi va ishni boshqaruvchi "waliy al-amr"dan farq qilganidek farq qiladi. "Waliy al-amr" aniq hokimga xos, "mavla" esa ko'p ma'nolarga ega bo'lib, ularning hech biri hokim emas. Ishlardagi "ijrochi" har bir ishni boshqaruvchi degani bo'lib, aniq hokim degani emas, va hokimlik undan tushunilmaydi, chunki til bu ma'noni unga qo'ymagan. Masala, kishilarning bir so'zdan yoki turli ishoralardan nimani tushunishiga emas, balki arablar so'z uchun qo'yganiga ko'ra qabul qilish masalasidir. Shuning uchun arablar "mavla" so'zini hokimiyat va boshqaruv ma'nosida ishlatishni qo'ymagan ekan, uni hech qachon shunday talqin qilib bo'lmaydi. Bu birinchisi. Ikkinchisi esa umumiy kontekstual ishoralardir. Ammo ular arablar o'z ochiq nutqida qo'ymagan ma'noni so'zga bera olmaydilar. Ishoralar jamoaviy so'zning ma'nolaridan birini aniqlashtiradi yoki so'zga zid bo'lgan ma'noni chetga surib, boshqasidan burib qo'yadi, lekin bu so'zga arablar qo'ymagan yangi ma'no yaratmaydi. "Mavla" so'zi "ikki og'ir narsa" hadisida, yoki Xum hadisi deb ataladigan rivoyatda kelgan va jumladagi ishoralar musulmonlarni Payg'ambar ﷺ ga bo'lgan ishonchlari asosida bir-biriga ishonishga undashni ko'rsatadi. Ammo bu, Ali (r.a.) Payg'ambar ﷺ dan keyin hokim bo'ladi, degan yangi ma'noni bermaydi, chunki til unga bu ma'noni qo'ymagan. Shundan ayonki, Ğadir Xum hadisi va "mavlo" hamda "valiy" so'zlari bilan kelgan boshqa hadislardan Ali (roziyallohu anhu)ning xalifa ekanligi xulosasini chiqarib bo'lmaydi, chunki arablar bu so'zga bunday ma'noni aniq belgilab qo'ymaganlar.

It is not possible to understand that giving him authority (sultan) is giving me (the same); rather the only understanding is whoever supports him supports me. So it becomes clear that all the ahadith which came (saying) that Ali (ra) is the “waliy” of every believer after the Messenger (saw) and their “mawla”, and that they must give him “muwalat” and befriend him because his “wilayah” is the “wilayah”, all these ahadith according to the language and Qur’anic texts cannot possibly be taken (as meaning) taking charge of the rule whether in respect to the meaning of the word or its position in the sentence(s) which came in the aforementioned ahadith. So these are not evidence that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) to the Khilafah after him thus their arguing with these texts fails. Here we must take note of two issues. First among the two is the fact that the word is conjugated from a specific article and it does not mean that all conjugations of this article are unified in meaning so that one of them takes the other’s meaning. The language can have more than one word for a meaning or it may give only one meaning laid down for a word without giving this meaning to any other word, according to how the Arabs laid it down. The similarity of words in conjugation does not mean similarity in meaning; rather the word takes the meaning for which the Arabs laid down for it without taking note of the article of conjugation. The word “ja’a” and the word “aja’a” are from one article; despite that, the meaning of “ja’a” is he came and the meaning of “aja’a” is to give refuge to (alja’a). “An-nadhuw” with a “kasra” on the “nun” means emaciated camel, whereas with a “dhumma” on the “nun” it means garment. As for the word “mawla”, it does not mean that because one of its meanings is the agent, and the one in charge, of the affair and the foremost of the people then this means the rule and authority because the word “waliy al-amr” means the rule and authority due to the same conjugation. The “mawla” differs in meaning from “waliy al-amr” just like the agent and one in charge of the affair differs in meaning from “waliy al-amr.” “Waliy al-amr” is specific for the ruler, whereas “mawla” has many meanings none of which is the ruler. The agent in the affairs means the one in charge in every affair and not the ruler specifically and the ruler is not understood from it because the language did not place this meaning for it. The matter is one of acceptance according to what the Arabs placed for the word, not what someone may understand from a collection of words or various indications. Therefore, as long as the Arabs did not place the use of the word “mawla” to mean rule and authority then it can never be interpreted as such. This is first, as for the second it is the contextual connotation in general, however they, cannot give a word a meaning other than what the Arabs place for it in their explicit speech. Connotations specify one of the meanings of a collective word or contrastive to the word, and divert it from another, but it does not create a new meaning for this word which the Arabs did not place for it. The word “mawla” came in the hadith called the hadith of two weighty matters or the hadith of Khum, and there came connotations in the sentence(s) indicating encouragement to Muslims to trust based upon their trust of the Messenger (saw), does not give it a new meaning that Ali (ra) becomes the ruler after the Messenger (saw), as long as the language did not place for it this meaning. From this it becomes clear that the hadith of Khum and others which came with the words “mawla” and “waliy” cannot lead to the deduction that Ali (ra) is the Khalifah due to the Arabs not explicitly placing this meaning for this word.

To'rtinchi matn, ya'ni birodarlik haqidagi hadisga kelsak, uning faqat o'qilishi va gap hamda so'zlariga qaralganda, u dalil sifatida ishlatilishiga olib kelmasligi ko'rinadi. Bu borada kelgan matnlar quyidagilardir.

As for the fourth text which is the hadith of brotherhood, its mere reading when one views that its sentence and words will not lead it be used as evidence. The texts which came upon this are:

yoki boshqa shunga o‘xshash narsalar Xalifalikka tayinlash bilan bog‘liq hukm yoki ishora bilan na tilda va na shariatda hech qanday aloqasi yo‘q. Bu hadislar Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) Ali (r.a.) ga o‘zidan keyin Xalifalikni va’da qilganiga dalil bo‘la olmaydi, shu sababli ular dalil sifatida yaroqsiz. Uchinchi turga kelsak, unda Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) Ali (r.a.) ni o‘zidan keyin Xalifa bo‘lishga tayinlaganini aniq matnlar bayon qiladi. Bular ikkita hadisdir: birinchisi “Al-G‘adir” kitobi muallifining bir rivoyatidagi G‘adiri Xum hadisi, ikkinchisi esa ular “uy hadisi” deb ataydigan hadisdir. “Al-G‘adir” kitobi muallifining rivoyatiga kelsak, u kitobining boshida “mening vorisim va xalifam” so‘zlarini zikr qilmasdan bir rivoyatni keltirgan, so‘ngra keyinroq at-Tabariy ga nisbat bergan boshqa bir rivoyatni keltirgan, unda “mening vorisim va xalifam” so‘zlari aniq kelgan. Shunday qilib, “Al-G‘adir” kitobining muallifi, shayx Abdulhusayn Ahmad al-Amiyniy an-Najafiy o‘z kitobida “Kitobi Aziz’dagi G‘adir” bobi ostida shunday degan: “Hofiz Abu Ja’far Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabariy, u 310 hijriy yilda vafot etgan, “al-Wilayah” kitobidagi rivoyatida G‘adiri hadisining isnodlari orasida Zayd ibn Arqam (r.a.) dan rivoyat qilib aytadi: “Payg‘ambar (ﷺ) vido haj safaridan qaytayotganda G‘adiri Xum’da to‘xtaganlarida, quyosh juda issiq bo‘lgan choshgoh vaqtida, u (ﷺ) yig‘ilgan baland daraxtlar atrofiga chodirlarni yig‘ishni buyurdi. U jamoat namozi uchun chaqirdi va biz yig‘ildik. U uzun xutba so‘zladi va dedi: “Albatta, Alloh (subhanahu va taolo) menga vahiy qildi:

Or other similar things have no relationship in any way whatsoever, either in the language or the Shari’ah, to the rule or carry any indication relating to the appointment over the Khilafah. These ahadith are not suitable to be evidence that the Messenger (saw) promised Ali (ra) the Khilafah after him, and accordingly they do not fulfil as evidence. As for the third type in which clear texts(s) came that the Messenger (saw) appointed Ali (ra) to become Khalifah after him, they are two ahadith: the first is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer in one narration by the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” and the second is the hadith which they call the hadith of the house. As for the narration of the writer of the book of “Al Ghadeer”, he mentioned a narration in the beginning of his book without mentioning the words “my heir and Khalifah” and then mentioned another later narration which he ascribed to At Tabari which came with the words “my heir and Khalifah” explicitly. So he, Sheikh Abd al Husain Ahmad Al-Amini An-Najafi, the writer of the book “Al-Ghadeer” said in his book under the chapter “Al-Ghadeer in the Book of Al-‘Aziz”: “Al-Hafidh Abu Ja’far Muhammad bin Jareer At Tabari who died in 310 Hijri narrated in his narration in the book of “Al-Wilayah” among the chains of the hadith of Al-Ghadeer from Zayd bin Arqam (ra) who said: ‘When the Prophet (saw) stopped at Ghadeer Khum in his return from the farewell pilgrimage at the time of forenoon when the sun was very hot, he commanded to assemble the tents around the lofty trees which were assembled. He called for the collective prayer so we gathered. He gave a lengthy khutbah and said: “Verily Allah (swt) revealed to me:

Bu G‘adir Xum hadisining rivoyatlaridan biridir va uning matnidagi ma’noga ko‘ra, unda aytilgan Payg‘ambardan keyingi vasiyat, tayinlash va rahbarlik haqidagi gaplar asossiz bo‘lib, bir qancha sabablarga ko‘ra rad etiladi, masalan:

This is one of the narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum, and due to the meaning of its text it is rejected so that what is said within it of the bequest, appointment and leadership after the Messenger is void without any basis for many causes such as:

1. Bu oyat Vido haji paytida nozil bo'lmagan, aksincha u Hudaybiya yilida Surat al-Fath'dan keyin nozil bo'lgan. Bu oyat Surat al-Fath'dan keyin nozil bo'lgan Surat al-Moida'dandir, Surat al-Fath esa Hudaybiya sulhidan qaytayotganda nozil bo'lgan. Mushafga bir nazar tashlansa, "Ey Payg'ambar, sizga nozil qilingan narsani yetkazing" degan oyatning nozil bo'lish vaqti aniq ko'rinadi va u Fath'dan keyin nozil bo'lganini ko'rsatadi. Demak, bu oyat Vido hajidan to'rt yil oldin nozil bo'lgan va G'adir Xum hadisi bilan hech qanday aloqasi yo'q, chunki G'adir Xum hadisining barcha rivoyatlari uning Vido haji paytida sodir bo'lganini aytadi. Bu o'zi hadisni rad etish va unda da'vo qilingan vasiyat hamda tayinlash haqidagi narsalarning noto'g'riligini tasdiqlash uchun kifoya qiladi.

1. This ayah was not revealed in the farewell pilgrimage, rather it was revealed after Surah Al Fath in the year of Hudaybiyya. This ayah is from Surah Al-Maidah which was revealed after Surah Al-Fath, and Surah Al-Fath was revealed during his (saw) return from the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. One glance to the Mushaf shows clearly the time of the revelation of the ayah: “O Prophet, convey what has been revealed to you” and shows it was revealed after Al-Fath. So the ayah was revealed four years before the farewell pilgrimage and has no relationship with the hadith of Ghadeer Khum in all the narrations since all narrations of the hadith of Ghadeer Khum say that it happened in the farewell pilgrimage. This alone is enough to reject this hadith and certify its invalidity of what is claimed within it about the testament and appointment.

2. Ayatning ma'nosi uning aytilgan matnida aniq bo'lib, Payg'ambar Rabbidan unga nozil qilingan narsani yetkazishga buyurilgani va Rabbidan unga nozil qilingan narsa Islom xabari ekanligi ayondir. Buni shu ayatdagi Uning so'zi belgilab, yagona ko'zda tutilgan ma'no qilib qo'yadi, boshqa hech narsa emas: "Agar qilmasang, u holda Uning xabarini yetkazmagan bo'lasan", ya'ni agar sanga nozil qilingan narsani yetkazmasang, haqiqatan sen Uning xabarini yetkazmagan bo'lasan. Bu "Sanga nozil qilingan narsa" iborasining niyati Allohning xabari ekanligi va boshqa hech narsa emasligiga aniq dalildir. Bundan tashqari, Qur'onda "yetkazmoq" (ballig) so'zi qayerda kelgan bo'lsa, u Allohning (subhanahu va taolo) xabarini yetkazishni anglatadi va Qur'onda u hech qachon boshqa ma'noda kelmagan. Alloh (subhanahu va taolo) aytdi:

2. The meaning of the ayah is clear in its stated text and understanding that the Messenger is commanded to convey what was revealed to him from his Lord, and that which was revealed to him from his Lord was the Islamic Message. This is designated and made the sole meaning intended, nothing else, by His statement in the same ayah: “And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message” i.e. if you do not convey what was revealed to you then verily you have not conveyed His message. This is a clear text that the intention of the ayah “What was revealed to you” is the message of Allah and nothing else. Moreover, whenever the word deliver (balligh) comes in the Qur’an it means conveying the message of Allah (swt) and it has never come with any other meaning in the Qur’an. Allah (swt) said:

3. "Revealed" in His saying "what was revealed to you" is a past participle verb formed in the passive voice (fi'l madhi mabni li-l-majhul), which means that what is intended is conveying everything that has already been revealed to him from his Lord, i.e., what came to him as revelation and was revealed to the Messenger (ﷺ). Thus Allah (SWT) commands the Messenger (ﷺ) to convey to the people what had previously been revealed to him. So the meaning is conveying something revealed before the revelation of this ayah, not a specific matter that came with the revelation of the ayah, such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it. The Messenger (ﷺ) therefore interpreted it as referring to the testament and the appointment. Accordingly, it is not possible to make the hadith an explanation of the ayah, since the hadith that became the cause of the ayah's revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned in the hadith, meaning it was revealed upon something at the time of its occurrence, whereas the ayah explicitly states that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.

3. The word “revealed” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a past participle verb built upon an ambigous (f’il madhi mubni li al-majhul) which means that what is intended from him is to convey all that has already been revealed to him from his Lord i.e. what came to him from the revelation and revealed to the Messenger (saw); so Allah (swt) commands the Messenger (saw) to convey to the people what has previously been revealed to him. So the meaning becomes to convey something revealed before the ayah’s revelation not to convey a specific matter which came with the ayah’s revelation such that the ayah was revealed because of it and he was commanded to convey it so the Messenger translated it to mean the testament and appointment. Therefore it is not possible to make the hadith an explanation for the ayah as the hadith which became the cause of the ayah’s revelation says that the ayah was revealed upon the incident mentioned by the hadith, so it was revealed upon something at the time of its happening. Whereas the ayah is explicit that it is the conveyance of something that occurred before the ayah was revealed. Therefore the hadith is not suitable to be the cause of the revelation.

4. Ayatdagi „what (ma)” so‘zi: „Sizga nima nozil qilingan bo‘lsa” degan iborada, u ism mavsul (bog‘lovchi ism) yoki maqsad qilingan noaniq ism (nakira maqsuda) bo‘lib, bu esa „sizga nozil qilingan narsa” bir masala va bir hukm, yoki ko‘p masalalar va ko‘p hukmlar bo‘lishi mumkinligini ko‘rsatadi. Ya’ni uning ma’nosi sizga nozil qilingan bitta hukmni yetkazish yoki Biz (SWT) sizga nozil qilgan turli masala va hukmlarning hammasini yetkazish bo‘lishi mumkin. Bu ikki ma’nodan birini aniqlab beruvchi narsa kontekstual ma’nodir. Oyatni oddiygina o‘qish, uni tekshirib ko‘rish esa bir yo‘la aniq qiladiki, Uning („Agar shunday qilmasangiz, Uning xabarini yetkazmagan bo‘lasiz”) degan so‘zidagi „Uning xabari” iborasi „what”ning ma’nosi sizga nozil qilingan hammasi, ya’ni Allohning (SWT) xabari ekanini bildiradi. Bu esa „what” sizga nozil qilingan bitta hukm degan ma’noni qat’iy rad etadi; bundan tashqari, „Uning xabari” so‘zi „sizga nozil qilingan narsa”ning Allohning xabari ekanini aniqlab bergan.

4. The word “what (ma)” in His saying: “what was revealed to you” is a relative pronoun (ism mawsul) noun or intended indefinite noun (nakira maqsuda) which makes it suitable that what was revealed to him is one matter and one rule or many matters and many rules i.e. its meaning could be to convey the rule revealed to you or deliver everything which We (swt) revealed to you from the various matters and rules. That which would specify either of these two meanings is the contextual connotation and the mere reading of the ayah, let alone its scrutiny, clarifies that His saying: “Then you have not revealed His message” designates by His statement “His message” that the meaning of “what” is all what was revealed to you which is the message of Allah (swt). This decisively negates that the meaning of “what” is one rule revealed to you; moreover, the word “His message” has clarified the meaning of “what was revealed to you” to be the message of Allah.

5. Albatta, Uning (SWT) ushbu oyatning oxiridagi so'zi:

5. Verily His (swt) statement at the end of the ayah:

Shunday qilib, Alloh (SWT)ning O‘z Elchisi (ﷺ)ga, U zotni kofirlarning zararidan himoya qilib saqlashi haqidagi va’dasi, ohirida Unga nozil qilingan narsani yetkazishi haqidagi ayatdagi yetkazish ma’nosi Islom xabarini yetkazish ekanligini belgilaydi. Aytilganki, Allohning: “Sizga nozil qilingan narsani yetkazing”, degan so‘zida Elchi (ﷺ) amalda yetkazib turgan bir paytda hech qanday ma’no yo‘q. Bunga javob shuki, bu yetkazish buyrug‘i ikki narsadan holi emas: yoki Elchi (ﷺ) xabarni yashirgan va yetkazmagan, yoki shunday odamlar bordirki, ularga xabar yetkazilmagan, shuning uchun ularga yetkazilmagan bo‘lish dunyoga yetkazilmagan bo‘lish hisoblanadi. Bu buyruqning Unga nozil qilingan muayyan bir hukmni yashirishi yoki xabarni to‘liq qilish uchun zarur bo‘lgan bir hukmni yetkazishi degan ma’noni anglatishi mumkin emas. Chunki bitta hukmni yashirish ham, butun xabarni yashirish kabi, Elchining (ﷺ) payg‘ambarligini va xabarini obro‘sizlantiradi. Shuning uchun u muayyan bir hukmni yashirish ma’nosini anglata olmaydi. Shuningdek, ayatda aytilgan:

So this promise from Allah (swt) to His Messenger (saw) to protect and preserve him from the harm of disbelievers in conveying what was revealed to him specifies that the meaning of the conveyance in the ayah is the conveyance of the message of Islam. It has been said that there is no meaning in His statement: “Convey what was revealed to you” while he is conveying in practice. The response to this is that this command to convey does not depart from one of two matters: Either the Messenger has concealed the message without conveying it, or there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed so the absence of conveyance to them is considered the absence of conveyance to the world. It is impossible for this command to mean his concealing a specific rule revealed to him which he did not convey or conveyance of one rule without which the message is not complete because the concealment of one rule will denigrate the Messenger’s (saw) Prophethood and his message like the concealment of the entire message, so it is impossible for it to mean the concealment of one specific rule. Also the ayah says:

Bu inkor etish (tabligh) ni bekor qilmaydi, ya'ni u xabarni yetkazmagan degani emas, balki muayyan bir hukmni yetkazmagan degani. Xususan, bitta hukmning yetkazilishi xabarning yetkazilishi hisoblanadi. Payg'ambar ﷺ birinchi kundan boshlab hukmlarni ularning nozil bo'lishiga ko'ra yetkazgan, shu sababli har bir hukmning yetkazilishi tabligh hisoblangan. Demak, ma'no muayyan bitta hukmni yetkazmaslik bo'lishi mumkin emas; balki gap xabarning o'zini yetkazmaslik haqida bormoqda. Payg'ambar ﷺ xabarni yetkazmasligi mumkin emasligi va oyatdan oldin ham tabligh qilayotgani isbotlangani uchun, oyat nozil bo'lishining ma'nosi shuki, shunday odamlar borki, ularga xabar yetib bormagan, ularga yetkazilmaslik dunyoga yetkazilmaslik hisoblanadi. Xabarning yetkazilishi esa faqat dunyoga yetkazilgan bo'lsagina tabligh hisoblanadi. Shu sababli Alloh ﷻ unga xabar yetib bormagan odamlarga xabarni yetkazishni buyurdi, ya'ni uni tabligh hisoblanguncha dunyoga yetkazishni va bu yetkazish jihod yo'li bilan bo'lishini buyurdi. Bu ma'noni oyatning Hudaybiya sulhidan keyin Payg'ambarga ﷺ nozil bo'lgani mustahkamlaydi. Quraysh o'sha paytgacha da'vatni tarqatishda Payg'ambar ﷺ kurashgan asosiy dushman edi, shu sababli ular bilan sulh tuzilishi jihod orqali tabligh to'xtatilgani haqida tushuncha berishi mumkin edi. Shuning uchun Alloh ﷻ unga arablar, rumliklar, forslar, qiptiylar va boshqalar orasidagi, unga yetib bormagan qolgan odamlarga jihod yo'li bilan tabligh qilishni davom ettirishni buyurdi, shunda uning tabligh qilishi xabarning dunyoga yetkazilishi bo'lib, bu xabarning yetkazilishi umumiy hisoblanadi. Amalda ham shunday bo'ldi. Ushbu oyat nozil bo‘lganidan keyin Rasululloh ﷺ Xaybarda yahudiylar bilan urushdi, Mu’ta jangiga tayyorgarlik ko‘rdi, katta qo‘shin bilan Tabukka bordi va u yerda qoldi, Makkani fath qildi va Fors shohlariga, qibtiylarga, Rum va boshqa shohlarga xat yozdi. Bular Uning: {…} degan so‘zining ma’nosini Rasulullohdan aniqlab berdi.

This negates the conveyance which means that he has not delivered the message not that he has not conveyed a specific rule, in particular the conveyance of one rule is considered the conveyance of the message. The Messenger (saw) from the first day onwards conveyed the rules according to their revelation such that the conveyance of each rule was considered the conveyance. Thus it is impossible for the meaning to be not conveying one specific rule; rather the sentence’s meaning is that he has not conveyed the message. Since it is impossible for him to not convey the message, and it has been proven that before the ayah he was (already) conveying, the meaning of the ayah’s revelation becomes that there are people to whom the message has not been conveyed such that the absence of conveyance to them is considered absence of conveyance to the world. And the message’s conveyance is not considered conveyance except if it is conveyance to the world. Due to this Allah (swt) commanded him to convey the message to the people whom it has not reached i.e. convey it to the world until it is considered conveyance and that this conveyance be by the method of jihad. This meaning is strengthened (by the fact) that the ayah was revealed to the Messenger (saw) after the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. Quraysh used to be the chief enemy whom the Messenger (saw) fought with in spreading the da’wa until that time, so the treaty with them would perhaps lead one to understand the stopping of conveyance via jihad. So Allah commanded him to continue the conveyance via the method of jihad to the rest of the people whom he has not conveyed to among the Arabs, Romans, Persians, Copts and others such that his conveyance becomes conveyance of the message to the world so that the conveyance of this message is considered universal. This is what occurred in practice. After the revelation of this ayah the Messenger (saw) fought the Jews at Khayber, prepared the battle of Mu’tah, went with a large army to Tabuk and remained there, conquered Makkah, and wrote to the kings of Persia, the Copts, Rome and other kings which clarified from him the meaning of the revelation of His statement:

Ushbu ikki matnda "voris" yoki "xalifa" so‘zi hech qanday shaklda uchramaydi. Aksincha, faqat "xalifa" so‘zi uchraydi, u esa oila a’zolariga nisbatan qo‘llangan, va oila ustidagi xalifalik hukmronlik yoki rahbarlik lavozimidagi xalifalik emas, uning bilan hech qanday aloqasi yo‘q. Bular Sahih kitoblarda kelgan matnlar bo‘lib, ular o‘xshash so‘zlar va birlashgan ma’noda ko‘plab rivoyatlarda kelgan, va ularning hech birida "voris" yoki "xalifalik" so‘zlari uchramagan. Sahih kitoblarning tuzuvchilari yoki ishonchli roviylarning hech biri orqali, Ali yoki boshqa biror kishiga nisbatan, hatto bitta hadisda ham "voris" yoki "xalifa" so‘zlari hech qanday shaklda kelmagan. Shuning uchun Sahih kitoblarda bunga hech qanday dalil yo‘qligi sababli, bu da’vo dalilsiz qoladi.

The word inheritor or Khalifah does not appear in these two texts in any way at all. Rather it is only the word Khalifah which appears restricted to his family, and the Khilafah over the family is not the Khilafah in the post of rule or leadership nor does it have any relationship with that. These are the texts which came in the Saheeh books, and they came in numerous narrations with similar wordings and unified meanings, and there did not appear in any of them the words inheritor or Khilafah. There has never appeared, either via any of the compilers of the Saheeh (books of ahadith) or any of the trustworthy narrators, in even one hadith the word(s) inheritor of Khalifah in any way at all either in relation to Ali or anyone else, so the evidence falls due to the absence of any evidence for it in the Saheeh books.

Ali tayinlanishi haqida tortishuvchilar nomlagan, "uy hadisi" deb atalgan matn esa, bu rivoyat (riwayah) bo'yicha, ma'nosi (dirayah) jihatidan rad etilgan. Hadis dirayah bo'yicha uning ma'nosiga qarab, riwayah bo'yicha esa isnodiga qarab rad etiladi. Shunday ekan, agar u isnod yoki ma'no jihatidan rad etilgan bo'lsa, uni e'tiborga olib bo'lmaydi va dalil sifatida qabul qilinmaydi. Uning ma'nosini rad etish esa ko'plab sabablarga ko'ra bo'lib, ulardan biri:

As for the text narrated by those who contend about the appointment of Ali which they named the hadith of the house, this text with this narration (riwayah) is rejected in its meaning (Dirayah).A hadith is rejected in its dirayah based on its meaning, and its narration based on its chain. So if it is rejected in its chain or meaning then it cannot be considered and it falls as evidence. As for rejecting its meaning, this is due to many reasons including:

Birinchidan: Bu hadisda ko'rinishicha, Rasululloh ﷺ da'vatida Abdulmuttalib avlodidan yordam so'ragan, va buning sharti sifatida hokimiyat ulardan keyin ularniki bo'lishi kerak bo'lgan. Bu ikki jihatdan batil: birinchidan, bu Rasulullohning ﷺ shunday bir voqeadagi so'zi va amali bilan zid keladi, ya'ni u qabila Islomni qabul qilsa, hokimiyat undan keyin ularniki bo'lishi haqidagi talabni rad etgan va shunday javob bergan:

Firstly: In this hadith it appears that the Messenger (saw) sought the assistance of the family of Abd al-Muttalib in his da’wa with the condition that the rule became theirs after them. This is void from two aspects: firstly, this contradicts the Messenger’s statement and action in the incident in which he refused the request from the tribe that the rule becomes theirs after him if they become Muslims to which he replied:

Ibn Hishom o‘zining "As-Sira" kitobida Ibn Ishoq shunday degani haqida rivoyat qiladi: az-Zuhriy rivoyat qildi, u Banu Omir ibn Sa'sa'aga uchrab, ularni Alloh azza va jall dinига da'vat qildi va o‘zini ularga taklif qildi. Ular orasidagi bir kishi, uni Bayjirat ibn Furra deb atashardi, unga dedi: "Alloh haqi, agar men Quraysh yigitini olsam, uning orqali arablarni yeb yuboraman (ya'ni ularni zabt etaman)". So‘ng u dedi: "Agar biz sizning ishingizni qo‘llashga va'da bersak-u, Alloh sizga qarshi chiqqanlar ustidan g‘alaba bersa, siz vafot etganingizdan keyin hokimiyat bizda bo‘ladimi?" U dedi: "Hokimiyat Allahniki, U uni xohlagan joyiga qo‘yadi". U unga dedi: "Biz sizning uchun bo‘ynimizni fido qilaylikmi, keyin Alloh (swt) sizga g‘alaba bergach, hokimiyat boshqa birovniki bo‘lsinmi? Unda bizga sizning ishingiz kerak emas", va ular uni rad etishdi. Qanday qilib Rasulullah ﷺ "Ish Allahniki, U uni xohlagan joyiga qo‘yadi", ya'ni xalifalik va undan keyingi hokimiyat ishi haqida shunday deya oladi-yu, Banu Abd al-Muttalibga esa shunday deydi:

Ibn Hisham narrated in his book of the Sirah of the Prophet (saw): Ibn Ishaq said that Az-Zuhri narrated that he met Banu Amr bin Sa’sa’ah so he invited them to Allah ‘azza wa jalla and offered himself to them. One man among them, whom they called Bayjirat bin Furra, said to him: By Allah, if I were to take this youth from the Quraysh, I will eat (i.e. conquer) the Arabs through him. Then he said: What if we were to pledge to support your matter then Allah will grant you victory over those who oppose you. Will the rule be with us after you? He said: “The rule is for Allah and He places it where He wills.” He said: So he said to him: Will we sacrifice our throats for you, then when Allah (swt) grants you victory the rule becomes for someone else? Then we have no need of your matter, and they rejected him.” How can the Messenger (saw) say: “The matter belongs to Allah and He will place it where He wills” i.e. the matter of the Khilafah and the rule after him, yet he says to Banu Abd al-Muttalib:

Qachonki Elchi (saw) qabilalarga o'zini taklif qilgan paytda, ya'ni payg'ambarlikning o'ninchi yilida, ya'ni "uy hadisi"dan keyin; demak, rad etilayotgan aynan uy hadisidir. Ikkinchi jihatga kelsak, bu hadisda Elchi (saw) kofirlarga ularning Islomga kirishi uchun biror narsa taklif qilgan, balki ularning Islomga kirishi evaziga ularga eng buyuk narsani – uning vafotidan keyin barcha musulmonlar ustidan xalifalikni taklif qilgan. Bu esa Elchining (saw) da'vatidagi amali hamda Shariat qoidalariga zid keladi. Elchi (saw) odamlarni Islomga chaqirar edi, chunki bu to'g'ri din edi, va hech qachon u zotdan, hatto zaif hadis orqali ham, kofirga uning Islomga kirishi evaziga kichik yoki katta biror narsa taklif qilgani rivoyat qilinmagan. Qalblari yumshatiladiganlarga kelsak, ular zakotdan beriladigan musulmonlardir, ular orqali Davlatni mustahkamlash maqsad qilinadi, Islomga kirishi uchun beriladigan kofirlar emas. Kofirga uning Islomga kirishi evaziga biror narsa berish ham joiz emas.

when the Messenger (saw) offered himself to the tribes i.e. in the tenth year after the messenger ship and therefore after the hadith of the house; so it is the hadith of the house which is rejected. As for the second side, it is that the Messenger (saw) in this hadith offered something to the disbelievers so that they may become Muslims, rather he offered them the greatest thing which is the Khilafah after him over all Muslims as the price for their entering into Islam. This contradicts the Messenger’s action in his da’wa and the Shari’ah rules. The Messenger would invite people to Islam because it is the correct deen and it has never been narrated from him, even through a weak hadith that he offered anything whether small or large to a kafir in exchange for his entering into Islam. As for those whose hearts are to be reconciled, they are Muslims who are given from the zakat in order to strengthen the State through them, not kuffar who are given so that they enter Islam. Nor is it allowed to give something to kuffar in exchange for their entering Islam.

Ikkinchidan: Hadisda aytilishicha, Rasulullah (saw) kofirlarni Islomga da'vat qilish maqsadida to'y ziyofati va ovqat tayyorladi va ular Islomga kirishi uchun ularni ovqat atrofiga to'pladi, lekin Islomni qabul qilgan Ali (ra) uchun ovqat tayyorlamadi. Demak, agar bu odamlar Islomni rad etsa va uning evaziga hokimiyat ular uchun uning vafotidan keyin bo'lishini rad etsa, u yerda Ali (ra) uchun uning roziligini bildirishiga joy yo'q, chunki u Islomga da'vat etilmayapti, sababi u allaqachon musulmon va unga qaratilgan hech qanday nutq yo'q. Shu sababli bu majlisda unga shunday deyiladigan joy yo'qdir:

Secondly: The hadith mentions that the Messenger (saw) prepared a wedding feast and meal for kuffar in order to invite them to Islam, and he gathered them around a meal so that they may enter Islam and he did not prepare food for Ali (ra) who had already accepted Islam. So if these people reject Islam and reject that the rule becomes theirs after him in exchange for Islam, there is no place there for Ali (ra) for giving his acceptance as he is not being invited to Islam because he is already a Muslim, and there is no speech addressed to him. This is why there is no place in this gathering such that he says to him:

Bu Abd al-Muttalib avlodiga qaratilgan xitobdir, chunki gap "Ey Banu Abd al-Muttalib" deb boshlangan. Shu sababli u ularga xos bo'lib, u ularning ustidan xalifa qilingan, ya'ni Abd al-Muttalib avlodi ustidan, musulmonlarning xalifasi emas, chunki u "va sizlar ustidan mening xalifam" degan. Shunday ekan, aniq matn ko'rsatganidek, u musulmonlar uchun xalifa emas. Bu yerda hukmning matnning umumiyligi bilan, sabab (sabab) ning xususiyligi bilan emas, deb aytib bo'lmaydi, chunki bu sabab emas, balki xos bir voqeadir. Shuningdek, bu so'zlar ham umumiy emas, balki xosdir: "Ey Banu Abd al-Muttalib", "sizlar orasidagi mening xalifam". Shuning uchun bu voqeaning xos bo'lgani sababli va umumiy so'zlarning yo'qligi sababli, hukmni xoslash talab qilinadi.

This is an address to the family of Abd al-Muttalib since the words started with his saying “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib.” So it is specific to them as he made him a Khalifah over them i.e. over the family of Abd al-Muttalib not the Khalifah of the Muslims since he said, “and my Khalifah over you.” Thus he is not the Khalifah for the Muslims as is depicted by the explicit text. Nor can one say here that the lesson is by the generality of the text not the specificity of the cause since this is a specific incident not a cause (sabab) not mentioning that the words are also specific and not general: “O Banu Abd al-Muttalib”, “my Khalifah among you” so the specification is demanded due to this being a specific incident not a cause, and also due to the absence of general words.

Bu to'rtta narsadan birortasi ham ushbu hadisning yolg'onligini va uning ziddiyatini ochib berish uchun kifoya qiladi hamda uning rivoyatini (dirayatan) rad etish vojibdir. Shuning uchun aniqlanadiki, Rasulullah (saw) Alini (ra) o'zlaridan keyin xalifa qilishni ochiq-oydin aytmaganlar. Bularning barchasidan ayon bo'ladiki, Rasulullah (saw) o'zlaridan keyin xalifalikka biror kishini tayinlaganini aytuvchilarning hadislari rad etilgan hadislardir, ularga dalil sifatida tayanish mumkin emas, shuning uchun ular o'z-o'zidan barbod bo'ladi. Rasulullah (saw) o'zlaridan keyin xalifalik ishini kimgadir topshirganliklariga hech qanday dalil qolmaydi; aksincha, bunga qarshi dalil sobit bo'lgan, ya'ni Rasulullah (saw) bu masalani musulmonlarga qoldirib, ular xohlagan kishini tanlashlarini ixtiyorlariga topshirgan, faqat xalifani tayinlash usulini ularga bayon qilib bergan.

Just one of these four matters suffices to reveal the falsehood of this hadith and its contradiction, and it is obligatory to reject its narration (dirayah). Therefore it is clarified that the Messenger (saw) did not explicitly state making Ali (ra) the Khalifah after him. From all this it becomes clear that the ahadith narrated by those who argue that the Messenger (saw) designated a person for the Khilafah after him are rejected ahadith unsuitable to depend upon as evidence so they fall. There remains no evidence that the Messenger (saw) designated anyone to be in charge of the Khilafah after him; rather the evidence has been established contrary to that i.e. that the Messenger (saw) left the matter to the Muslims to choose whom they want in relation to the person but he specified for them the method for appointing the Khalifah.

Xatolik shundaki, guyoki Elchi (saw) o'zlaridan keyin xalifa bo'ladigan shaxslarni tayinlagan, degan qarashlarda, ular Ali (ra)ni tayinlaganini da'vo qilgan hadislarning dalilsizligidan ayon bo'ladi. Xalifalik faqat ularniki, deydiganlar buni faqat Ali (ra)ning avlodlari ekanliklari uchun aytadilar. Shuning uchun, agar ularning dalillari Ali (ra) haqida o'rinli bo'lmasa, dalil uning o'zi haqida qo'llanmagani sababli, ularning avlodlari haqida ham tabiiy ravishda o'rinli bo'lmaydi. Bundan tashqari, ular Ali (ra)ning avlodlarining xalifaligini dalil sifatida keltirish uchun rivoyat qiladigan hadislar, Alloh va Uning Elchisi (saw) tomonidan aniq matn bilan ko'rsatilgan emas, balki ahli bayt haqidagi hadislar bo'lib, ular faqat maqtovni bildiradi, undan ortig'ini emas. Ular uchun namuna bo'lib xizmat qiladigan ikki og'ir narsa haqidagi hadis, ya'ni G'adir Xum hadisi, dalil sifatida yaroqsizligi aniq ko'rsatilgan, shuning uchun qolgan hadislar ham unga ergashadi.

As for the error in the views that the Messenger (saw) designated the persons who would be Khulafaa after him, it is clear from the absence of evidence of the ahadith which they claim designated Ali (ra) for it. Those who say that the Khilafah is for them only say this because they are the descendants of Ali (ra), so if their evidence does not apply in respect to Ali (ra) it also naturally does not apply in respect to his descendants due to the proof not applying in respect to him. Moreover, the ahadith which they narrate in its consideration as evidence for the Khilafah of the descendants of Ali (ra) by a clear text from Allah and His Messenger (saw) are the ahadith related to the family of the house which all indicate praise and no more than that. The hadith of the two weighty matters i.e. the hadith of Ghadeer Khum is considered a model for them, and its failing in argument has been demonstrated clearly so the rest of the ahadith follow it.